final report june 2014
TRANSCRIPT
RESEARCH, DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEYS REGARDING BIO-AGRICULTURE
The Balmoral Group, LLC165 Lincoln AvenueWinter Park, FL 32789
Final ReportJune 2014
Project Number # 020654
i
Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
I. Status of Florida Bio‐Ag ......................................................................................................................... 3
1. Commercialization Process ............................................................................................................... 4
2. Marketing .......................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Industry Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 6
II. Commercialization Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 9
Bioenergy .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Biochemical Products .............................................................................................................................. 11
Biocontrol Products ................................................................................................................................ 12
Biopharma ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Selected Current and Potential Bio‐Ag Crops ............................................................................................. 14
III. Recommended Strategies to Advance Florida Bio‐Agriculture ...................................................... 16
FDACS Liaison Role .................................................................................................................................. 16
1 Support Bioenergy through Policy Signals, Funding, and Outreach .................................... 20
2 Support Biochemical Market Development through Research and Funding ..................... 21
3 Support Biocontrol Commercialization .................................................................................... 22
4 Increase Florida’s Capacity to Research and Commercialize Biopharma Products .......... 23
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix A: Identified Focus Areas for Bio‐Agriculture Research Development ....................................... 25
Bioenergy Focus Areas ............................................................................................................................ 25
Biochemical Focus Areas ......................................................................................................................... 27
Biocontrol Focus Areas ........................................................................................................................... 28
Biopharma Focus Areas .......................................................................................................................... 29
Profiles of Focus Areas ............................................................................................................................ 31
Drop‐in Fuels ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Ethanol ................................................................................................................................................ 33
Biomass ............................................................................................................................................... 34
High‐Value Biochemical Products ....................................................................................................... 36
Natural Enemies and Weed Biocontrol Agents .................................................................................. 38
Genetic Biocontrol Technologies ........................................................................................................ 40
Dietary Supplements and Nutraceuticals ........................................................................................... 41
Cosmetics ............................................................................................................................................ 43
Appendix B1: Crop Suitability ..................................................................................................................... 44
Crop Screening Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 44
GIS Analysis of Potential Bio‐Ag Crops .................................................................................................... 45
Further Analysis – Future Alternative Crops ........................................................................................... 47
Appendix B2: Figures and Tables ................................................................................................................ 49
Appendix B3: Cultivation Guidelines for Future Alternative Crops ............................................................ 70
Appendix C1: Florida Bio‐Ag Laboratories and Test Facilities ..................................................................... 81
ii
Laboratories and Test Facilities ‐ General Findings ................................................................................ 81
Investing in Florida .................................................................................................................................. 83
State and Local Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 83
Local Facilities ......................................................................................................................................... 98
Federal Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 98
Private Facilities .................................................................................................................................... 105
Appendix C2: Detailed Facility Characteristics .......................................................................................... 114
Appendix D: Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 121
Appendix E: Works Cited ........................................................................................................................... 131
List of Tables Table 1. Bio‐Ag Summary Statistics ............................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Selected Current Bio‐Ag Crops ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 3. Selected Potential Bio‐Ag Crops .................................................................................................... 15
Table 4. State Comparison of Research Institutions ................................................................................... 17
Table 5. Summary of Bio Ag Development Strategies ................................................................................ 18
Table 6. Market Positions of Bio‐Ag Focus Areas ....................................................................................... 30
Table 7: Sub‐Market Stage of Development ............................................................................................... 82
Table 8. Characteristics of Federal Facilities ............................................................................................... 99
Table 9. Summary of characteristics of Private Entities ........................................................................... 106
Table B‐ 1. Detailed Crop List – Current Crops............................................................................................ 50
Table B‐ 2. Detailed Crop List ‐ Future Alternative Crops ........................................................................... 52
Table B‐ 3. Detailed Crop List ‐ Future Other Crops .................................................................................... 53
Table B‐ 4. Unsuitable Crops ....................................................................................................................... 54
Table B‐ 5. GIS Suitability Assumptions ‐ Current Crops ............................................................................. 55
Table B‐ 6. GIS Suitability Assumptions – Future Alternative Crops ........................................................... 57
Table B‐ 7. GIS Suitability Assumptions – Future Other Crops ................................................................... 58
Table B‐ 8. Current Potential Acreage ........................................................................................................ 59
Table B‐ 9. Future Alternative Acreage ....................................................................................................... 60
Table B‐ 10. Future Other Acreage ............................................................................................................. 61
Table C‐ 1. State and Local Facility Characteristics ................................................................................... 114
Table C‐ 2. Federal Facility Characteristics................................................................................................ 118
Table C‐ 3. Private Facility Characteristics ................................................................................................ 119
List of Figures Figure 1. Segmentation of Bio‐Ag ................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Crop Development Cycle ................................................................................................................ 4
Figure 3. Processing Commercialization Cycle .............................................................................................. 5
Figure 4. Florida Bioenergy Status ................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 5. Energy Cane: Everglades Research & Education Center .............................................................. 10
Figure 7. Anticipate Leadership in Biochemicals Production (Impediments Removed), Next 5 Years ....... 12
iii
Figure 6. Anticipate Leadership in Biochemicals Production (Current Impediments), Next 5 Years ......... 12
Figure 8. Tropical REC Greenhouses ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9. Parasitic Wasps; Dundee Biocontrol Lab ..................................................................................... 28
Figure 10. Florida Wine Industry Growth ................................................................................................... 30
Figure 11. Carinata R&D Network .............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 12. Biocontrol Vendors .................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 13. Biocontrol Products ................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 14. Energy Cane at the Everglades REC ........................................................................................... 85
Figure 15. Greenhouse at the Mid‐Florida REC; Vacant Due to Lack of Funds ........................................... 87
Figure 16. Young Carinata at The North Florida REC (Quincy) .................................................................... 88
Figure 17. Pyrolysis chamber at the North Florida REC (Quincy ................................................................. 89
Figure 18. Jatropha at the TREC in Homestead .......................................................................................... 91
Figure 19. Abandoned facility from previous land use ............................................................................... 97
Figure 20. Rearing room in Dundee ............................................................................................................ 97
Figure 21. A 350‐gallon crate of Carinata fuel, representing about two days of production ................... 108
Figure 22. Infrastructure at the GREC ....................................................................................................... 109
Figure 23. Feedstock entry point at Stan Mayfield Biorefinery Pilot Plant ............................................... 112
1 | P a g e
ExecutiveSummaryAgriculture is Florida’s second largest industry; the state boasts 9.25 million total acres of agricultural
land, 80 processing facilities, and 4,000 researchers. Built on resource investments dating back to the
1920s and driven by constant innovation, Florida’s Bio‐Agriculture market generates just under one‐
third of all research and development (R&D) in Florida.1 Major research universities, 3 million square
feet of lab space, long growing seasons, a business‐friendly reputation, natural diversity including
tropical environments, and access to the International Space Station (ISS) through the Kennedy Space
Center (KSC) are a few of Florida’s advantages. Table 1 provides summary statistics for the Bio‐Ag
market in Florida.
Microgravity environments may accelerate
discoveries by many years in what is normally a slow
process; 66 new varieties of several crops have
already been developed through space‐induced
mutation by the Chinese. Access to the ISS National
Laboratory and excess capacity at the KSC has strong
potential to advance Bio‐Ag in this manner. This
situation is uniquely available to Florida currently.
Critical needs of the Bio‐Ag industry include a connection point or liaison to allow growers, investors and
researchers to move discoveries off of academic shelves and into the marketplace; a potential role for
the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) is outlined herein. Florida lacks
some of the information‐sharing networks of California and other leaders, due in part to its
geographically spread‐out activity. Another gap is in underwriting for commercialization and
development.
Bio‐Ag has become partitioned into distinct submarkets, with largely independent supply chains,
research needs, and final consumers. Bio‐Agriculture’s four main submarkets are shown in Figure 1. This
report provides details on the status of market maturity, research themes in each submarket, the
commercialization opportunities, and the strategies identified to aggressively accelerate the Bio‐Ag
market in Florida.
1 Based on data for applicable NAICS codes, US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and County Business Patterns, US Census
2 Estimates represent a midpoint between upper and lower estimates. The lower estimate includes only agricultural applications of Research & Development (R&D) as reported by U.S. Census; upper bound includes R & D within agriculture for biological, forestry, chemistry, and renewable energy applications, but excludes life sciences biotechnology.
Bio‐Ag firms in FL 520
Total Employment 7,350
Average Annual Wage $94,028
Total Payroll ($1,000s) $549,918
Revenue ($1,000s) $1,566,482
Value Added ($1,000s) $ 886,590
Sources: U.S. Census, IBIS World, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity
2
Table 1. Bio‐Ag Summary Statistics
Figure 1. Seg
gmentation oof Bio‐Ag
2 | P a g e
3 | P a g e
IntroductionThe Balmoral Group (TBG) assessed Bio‐Agriculture (Bio‐Ag) in Florida and identified opportunities to
increase commercial utilization of state and federal research and testing facilities. Information was
collected from trade groups, conference attendees, growers, lab operators, and large landowners. More
than 240 interviews were conducted with academic experts and private sector representatives.
Nineteen sites were visited for enhanced interviews and facility assessments.
Each Bio‐Ag submarket was explored in detail, with attention paid to underutilized research facilities,
commercial opportunities for partnerships, and synergies between the private sector and university,
state, and federal research entities. While much of the information was gathered from stakeholders
within the industry, the recommendations to advance Florida Bio‐Ag are a product of TBG and represent
the firm’s perception of the requirements for seizing the most promising opportunities for commercial
growth.
An investment by the State in Bio‐Ag is also an investment in the protection of Florida’s threatened
$9 billion citrus industry. Biocontrol efforts have the potential to address greening directly, while
biochemicals and biopharma offer potential alternatives for existing citrus lands while solutions are
developed.
This report is organized as follows:
I. Overview of Florida’s Bio‐Ag market, including commercialization, facilities, and information‐
sharing networks
II. Commercialization Opportunities by Submarket
III. Recommended Strategies to accelerate Florida’s Bio‐Ag markets
Detailed Appendices follow, which include technical information relating to specific crop agronomic
assessments, facilities inventories and capabilities, and submarket focus areas.
I. StatusofFloridaBio‐AgFundamentally, Bio‐Ag represents new applications of existing agricultural practices and processes – a
commercialization process. There are two essential pathways for Bio‐Ag market development: (1) a crop
cycle, during which new crops are identified, developed and brought to marketable scale, and (2) a
processing and distribution cycle, during which processing techniques or modifications are tested, inputs
arranged to support ongoing production, and distribution markets organized. While research drives
momentum in early stages, policy signals and private sector linkages enable the transition to mature
stages of commercialization.
In Florida, there are Bio‐Ag opportunities represented at almost every step in the cycle of
commercialization; both crops and processing technology vary in market maturity by submarket, crop,
processing facility, status of research, and distribution networks. At the broadest level, there is common
supporting infrastructure for the overall market sector.
This sectio
1
2
3
In the nex
profiles st
1. CoFrom the
desirable
potential;
has been
Additiona
stage is d
Sciences (
of the ear
product o
establishe
Figure 2,
crop deve
of success
of reachin
small num
on provides o
. Commerci
. Marketing
. Industry in
xt section, ke
trategies to a
mmercialicrop produc
traits throug
; this is an are
n identified,
al stages of d
dominated by
(IFAS), the Un
rly stage dev
or service on
ed in the field
borrowed fro
elopment. In
s at each stag
ng the end o
mber of globa
overview info
alization Proc
g
nfrastructure
ey commercia
dvance Florid
izationPrction side of
gh genetic re
ea in which F
further rese
development
y different gr
nited States D
elopment. St
nce the proo
d, add the pro
om a present
the Figure, th
ge underscore
f the cycle su
l firms invest
rmation for F
cess
alization oppo
da’s Bio‐Ag se
rocessthe process,
esearch allow
Florida has ro
arch is unde
testing are r
roups. Gover
Department o
art‐up compa
of of concep
oduct or servi
tation by the
he entire cyc
e that, for a v
uccessfully de
across the en
Figure 2. Cro
Florida’s Bio‐A
ortunities are
ector into a na
the Bio‐Ag c
ws the devel
oots going bac
ertaken to e
required befo
nment ‐ thro
of Agriculture
anies develop
pt has been
ce to their ex
e Silicon Valle
le spans from
viable industry
epend on the
ntire spectrum
p Developme
Ag market, or
e discussed; s
ational leade
cycle begins w
lopment of c
ck more than
ensure the c
ore crops are
ough the Inst
e (USDA), and
p the techno
established.
xisting range a
ey Bank, sum
m 6 to 12 yea
y, research is
e level of act
m of the inno
ent Cycle
rganized as fo
subsequently
rship role.
with basic res
crops with st
n 100 years. O
crop is worth
e released fo
titute of Foo
other institu
logy and usu
Larger firm
and finalize c
mmarizes the
ars. Estimates
s a volume en
tivity in the e
ovation proce
4 | P
ollows:
y, the third se
search. Ident
tronger mark
Once a gene
hy of invest
or marketing.
d and Agricu
utions ‐ funds
ally hand ove
s, usually al
commercializa
research cyc
s of the proba
nterprise. The
early steps. O
ess.
a g e
ection
tifying
keting
strain
ment.
Each
ultural
s most
er the
ready
ation.
cle for
ability
e odds
Only a
5 | P a g e
Two observations on this development cycle that are important to Florida Bio‐Ag relate to information
sharing and length of cycle. As research funding has decreased in recent years, proof of concept and
early development activities have been limited, leading to missed opportunities. The longer the cycle,
the more capital is needed, and the higher the breakeven point for the investment. However, access to
technology that can shorten the longest element of the development cycle – gene/trait identification –
can improve the overall odds of success. Use of the Kennedy Space Center for access to the
International Space Station (ISS) for rapid plant and bacterial cell development may shorten the time for
trait definition and thereby provide a unique advantage to Florida researchers. To create a true
competitive advantage, prioritization of ISS access for firms with research or commercialization
presence in Florida may entice greater Florida investment. Cultivating greater utilization of this
advantage by Florida researchers may be the key to establishing a recognized leading role for Florida in
the Bio‐Ag market.
Figure 3 depicts the Process Commercialization Cycle. Investors in this cycle frequently are already
involved in production or processing of another product, and are investigating modifications or
refinements to their facility or distribution network. An important element in accelerating this process is
the information‐sharing network. Agglomeration effects, which arise from working in close proximity to
others that are exploring similar ideas, are less visible in Florida due to the previously noted spread out
nature of individuals in the Bio‐Ag space. Connecting these individuals will be critical to achieving rapid
acceleration in this market. Marketing efforts and liaisons can work to expedite this cycle; further details
are provided in this and the next section.
Figure 3. Processing Commercialization Cycle
2. MaFlorida h
investmen
INEOS Bio
15 biofue
marketing
sector an
researche
Florida h
Researche
dedicated
more tha
College in
Florida (U
Everglade
preceden
groundbre
recognize
research
intersecti
insufficien
The privat
agricultur
between
Very large
medium s
Correcting
word out
An opport
follow Bio
research
Direct eng
producers
3. IndFlorida ha
resources
Resea
suppo
annua
arketingas substantia
nt. Silicon Va
o, BP Ethanol
el/biochemica
g could raise
d its high pot
ers and invest
has attractive
ers have the
d scientists in
an a century
n 1884, whic
UF), and the E
es Research
t‐setting r
eaking work
ed as the p
in Florida,
on of public
nt for their in
te sector has
ral interests h
firms investig
e organizatio
sized firms ha
g this commu
to smaller fir
tunity exists t
o‐Agricultural
reports in thi
gagement of
s of Bio‐Ag pr
dustryInfras a broad bas
s, and produc
arch – Florid
ort from over
al funding an
al assets tha
alley Bank rec
(now cancele
al projects n
e the visibilit
tential. Addit
tors is therefo
e features f
e opportunity
n a state that
y, establishin
ch eventually
Everglades Re
and Educati
esearch to
on energy c
rimary sourc
Bio‐Ag prod
and private
formational n
been actively
have funded s
gating similar
ns have been
ave tended to
unication void
rms about pot
to attract pur
l prospects. In
is market spa
this group, an
roducts, will b
rastructurse of Bio‐Agri
tion capacity
da houses an
r 3,000 techn
d leveraging
at, if promot
cently listed
ed), and LS9 (
nationally, tie
y of this und
ional messag
ore recomme
for recruitin
y to work a
t has valued
ng the Florid
y became the
esearch Cente
on Center (
o this da
cane. While
ce for curre
ducts tend
e research –
needs.
y supporting
substantial re
r processes, o
n successful i
o operate ind
d is essential t
tential partne
re investmen
n addition to
ace, and are
nd publicity s
be helpful in r
reiculture resea
:
n estimated
nical and skil
a large supp
ted appropri
Florida as th
(recently acq
ed with Iow
derappreciate
ging targeted
nded.
g researche
longside 4,00
agriculture f
da Agricultur
e University
er in 1920. T
REC) produc
ay, includi
IFAS is large
ent agricultu
to be at t
and private
Bio‐Ag resea
esearch priva
or enjoying co
in combining
ependently, u
to reaching c
ers should be
t‐driven capit
trade confer
potential link
urrounding F
raising visibili
arch and com
4,000 – 4,50
led administr
ly of specializ
ately, can ef
he location fo
uired by Ren
wa for the h
ed
at
rs.
00
for
ral
of
he
ces
ng
ely
ure
he
investors se
rch through F
ately. The rela
omplementar
g industrywid
unaware of c
ritical mass fo
e part of the s
tal into the st
rences, specif
ks to the app
Florida’s inten
ty for Florida
mmercializatio
00 dedicated
rative staff, g
zed lab space
AccesstoInternatiStationfodevelopmshortentdevelopmprovidingsignificancompetitiadvantagresearche
ffectively att
or three “Pro
ewable Energ
ighest numb
ee existing a
Florida’s univ
ationships tha
ry assets, are
e research as
complementa
or Bio‐Ag in F
state’s market
tate, accordin
fic Wall Stree
propriate aud
ntions to mov
a’s efforts.
on activity, ma
d agricultural
generating up
e in the form
6 | P
theionalSpacorrapidcmentmayhe
mentcycle,gantivegetoFloriers.
tract more B
ojects to Wat
gy Group, Inc
ber; higher p
academic pat
versity system
at have deve
highly specia
ssets, but sm
ary firms or ef
Florida; gettin
ting strategy.
ng to analysts
et analysts pr
ience of inve
ve into the to
anufacturing
researchers
p to $1.9 bill
m of state and
a g e
ce ell
,
ida
Bio‐Ag
tch” –
c.) ‐ of
profile
ths as
m, and
loped
alized.
mall to
fforts.
ng the
.
s who
rovide
estors.
p U.S.
s with
ion in
d local
7 | P a g e
facilities (3.3 million square feet), federal facilities (700,000 square feet), and private facilities
(400,000 square feet). This group represents a critical mass of institutional knowledge that
contributes just under $1 billion in value added to Florida’s economy, not including the value of
discoveries or scientific advances they produce.
Manufacturing – Florida’s 80+ agricultural processing facilities, refineries, and former National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facilities represent a solid base of manufacturing
assets: refineries and facilities utilize a skilled workforce of technicians, mechanics, electricians, and
plumbers with experience in an industrial production environment. Retention of both the facilities
and the knowledge base of the supporting workforce are important; together, they can be utilized
for multiple purposes and to build the base of future manufacturing strength. The skilled personnel
that operate the plants are valuable as part of Florida’s industrial and manufacturing base. Citrus
processing plants in operation numbered 42 in 2000; today there are fewer than 20. Some
fermentation and extraction units can be modified or used for alternative crop processing and may
be transferrable to Bio‐Ag applications. Alternative Bio‐Ag operations that can deploy the assets are
part of the commercialization and development evaluation.
Commercialization – Among those interviewed, private Bio‐Ag firms spent an average of $30.5
million over the past five years. Once firms achieve proof of efficacy, private investors tend to be
willing to step in with more than $1 million in funding. Below that level, the initial investor generally
must raise funds directly. State grants that underwrite early stage commercialization efforts, with
technical assistance, can help bridge this gap.
Production Capacity ‐ Florida’s current agricultural land and processing/production workforce are
substantial, and could support production of significantly higher levels of Bio‐Agricultural activity.
USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates reflect that crops with non‐traditional
applications generate relatively higher value than commodities, due to the value added in the
supply chain. The optimal crop mix and capital reallocation will be determined by the private sector,
and fluctuate over time, but Florida’s farmers will benefit as agricultural inputs are used for
increasingly valuable processing.
Kennedy Space Center – KSC presents a unique advantage to Florida Bio‐Ag, which is currently
underutilized due to lack of awareness. Productive research has already occurred through IFAS
collaborative relationships with the private sector at the KSC. An example includes progress in
developing cold tolerance for Jatropha, to allow it to be grown in central Florida as a bioenergy crop.
Researchers underestimate their potential access to the ISS, or to funding available through the
Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS); few researchers are aware of, or believe
they have access to or the capacity to leverage, this competitive advantage. Aggressive collaboration
with academic and government researchers is needed to bring further Bio‐Ag focused use of the
KSC.
Information‐Sharing Networks ‐ Numerous agencies, institutions, and entities are deeply involved in
various aspects of Bio‐Ag research, funding, and commercialization, but often without knowledge of
each other. In addition, those on the front lines of commercialization perceive mixed signals for
investment in Florida, relative to other states. These networks, together with policy signals and
funding allocation for research, help drive progress along both essential commercial pathways for
8 | P a g e
Bio‐Ag market development. While research drives momentum in early stages, policy signals and
private sector linkages facilitate the transition to mature stages of commercialization. In the next
section, a potential role for FDACS as a liaison is outlined as a recommendation.
II. Com
Florida’s B
B
B
B
B
Commerc
opportun
submarke
the early
BioenerSubmar
Bioenergy
establishe
developm
based bio
technolog
petroleum
high proc
Ethanol is
system lik
from yea
small ope
in Florida
the Fort
sweet sor
undevelo
Gainesvill
to Gaines
biomass a
products
private fa
mmerciali
Bio‐Ag opport
ioenergy incl
iochemical p
iocontrol inc
iopharma ref
cial developm
ities and tren
et, representi
research and
rgyrket Matur
y opportu
ed technolo
ments. Ethano
oenergy feed
gy that stru
m and other
essing costs a
s not support
ke that of B
rs of incent
erations are p
, such as Sou
Lauderdale a
rghum. Biom
ped market,
e Renewable
ville Regiona
and ethanol c
and, of lesse
acilities that h
Early Researc
zationOp
tunities can b
udes crop‐de
roducts inclu
ludes insects,
fers to pharm
ment and st
nds are highli
ing commerc
conceptual p
ity:
unities inc
ogies and m
ol, processed
dstocks, is a
uggles to co
conventional
and undevelo
ted in Florida
razil, which h
ives. Neverth
pushing comm
utheast Renew
area, which p
ass energy g
but is never
e Energy Cent
l Utilities, and
could be effec
r but still sign
have survived
h Early
pportunit
be described i
erived biofuel
de organic ch
, microbials, a
maceutical and
trength of c
ghted within
ial maturity;
phase, to a fu
clude both
more recen
d from sugar
n established
ompete with
fuels, due to
oped markets
a by a mature
has benefited
heless, a few
mercialization
wable Fuels in
plans to prod
generation is
rtheless supp
er (GREC), wh
d Green Circle
ctively suppo
nificant impor
d market uph
y Development
ties
in terms of th
s and biomas
hemicals that
and other pes
d nutraceutic
current oppo
each subma
maturity ran
ll pie which in
h
nt
r‐
d
h
o
s.
e
d
w
n
n
duce up to 2
another esta
ported by a
hich services
e Bioenergy,
orted by polic
rtance, increa
heaval are su
Initial Commercializ
he four main
ss that is burn
can substitut
st control or m
cal products f
ortunities va
arket below. “
nges from on
ndicates a we
0 million gal
ablished tech
handful of p
a 30‐year ag
which export
cies that wou
ased state fu
uccessful bec
zationEst
Figure 4.
submarkets:
ned to produc
te directly fo
management
rom agricultu
aries by sub
“Pie” graphic
ne quarter of
ell‐establishe
lons of etha
hnology that
private opera
reement to s
ts wood pelle
ld increase th
nding for app
cause they ha
tablished Market
Florida Bioe
9 | P
ce energy.
r petrochemi
t innovations
ural sources.
bmarket; stan
s accompany
f the pie, den
d submarket:
nol per year
struggles wi
ations such a
ell biomass e
ets to Europe.
he demand fo
plied research
ave found wa
nergy Status
a g e
cals.
.
ndout
y each
noting
:
from
ith an
as the
energy
. Both
or the
h. The
ays to
10 | P a g e
capture value within their existing production process, including commercial byproducts – which is
consistent with agricultural business models in general.
Drop‐in jet fuels are a more recent bioenergy innovation, and demonstrate immediately promising
commercial potential, thanks to the United States Air Force’s plan for 50% of its operations to run on a
50% blend of renewable fuel by 2016. Drop‐in jet fuels, by definition, are effective without any
necessary modification to existing machinery. This desirable trait, combined with the existence of a
ready market, makes them well‐positioned as the next big commercial movement in bioenergy. A
healthy network already exists between Applied Research Associates (ARA),a private firm in Florida, the
UF IFAS North Florida REC, Chevron, and Canadian nonprofit organizations focused on Carinata, a
particularly promising feedstock. However, commercial scale processing infrastructure is lacking.
Some agricultural producers who would be well positioned to grow crops for bioenergy are not doing so,
simply because many of them have not explored the potential (i.e., they remain comfortable with crops
they have been producing) or lack knowledge of Florida‐specific best practices for these crops. Stronger
partnerships can encourage communication and collaboration between farmers, researchers, extension
workers and government officials. Since many of the crops identified as potential bioenergy sources are
not commonly grown in Florida, there is
concern that some of the crops could become
invasive and pose a challenge for land
managers. In general, many of the same
characteristics that make a crop a good
candidate for bioenergy (high growth rate,
robustness) are the same characteristics that
invasive species possess. The severity of this
problem varies by the specific feedstock in
question. Root systems of many bioenergy
crops make them difficult to remove from the
field; elephant grass is an example of an
especially severe case. Even some researchers
have little confidence that they will be able to
remove energy grasses (including energy cane) from their fields, because many lack the management
experience to do so quickly and effectively. Elephant grass had been introduced partly based on the
premise that it would not flower in Florida’s climate, but has successfully self‐propagated by seed. Other
feedstocks, however, such as annuals like sweet sorghum and Carinata, are far less burdened by these
characteristics. This diversity underscores the importance of accounting for individual crop
characteristics in considering the larger bioenergy submarket.
The outputs of bioenergy are primarily transportation fuels and electricity. Consequently, biofuels
compete with traditional sources of energy: oil, natural gas, and coal. All three sources are used in
Florida for electrical generation; oil (as gasoline, diesel, or aviation fuel) is the primary resource for
transportation. If prices decline or the cost of use increases for any traditional energy source, one fossil
fuel may substitute for others (e.g., in Florida some utilities are decommissioning select, older coal‐fired
Figure 5. Energy Cane: Everglades Research & Education Center
units and
certain th
cannot en
seven sta
generally
establishe
whole is
advantage
bioenergy
in Florida
BiochemSubmar
Biochemic
agricultur
submarke
facilities,
and end‐
operation
of comme
advanced
The Stan
high‐value
ethanol, t
Establishe
its promis
bottles fr
prospects
rubber, ny
productio
market m
citrus ext
Fort Pierc
Discussion
3 EPA's lateopportunitiecarbon emis
converting t
hresholds. On
nter the mar
ates, but not
be met by in
es a demand
a region wit
e by having s
y is the most
.
micalProdrket Matur
cal technolo
ral products
et, due to clo
such as sucr
products. Pr
ns; biochemic
ercial operat
ethanol to h
Mayfield Bio
e bioplastics
the current ch
ed firms are n
sing supply of
rom 100% b
s for butadien
ylon, plastics
on of bio‐bas
movement for
racts with ap
ce is explorin
ns with the p
st carbon reduc
es for Florida. Issions compared
to natural gas
e interview re
ket except as
Florida, hav
n‐state resour
; however, t
h large biom
horter haul d
developed Bi
ductsity:
gy, in gener
into valuable
ose synergies
rose syrup an
ogress in th
cal products c
ions, as in th
high quality su
refinery Pilot
as a byprod
hief focus of t
needed to inc
f viable feeds
bioplastics by
ne, 10 million
, and latexes
sed butadien
r biochemica
pplications in
g the applica
private sector
ction rule propo
n current marked to the displace
s). Biofuels co
evealed that
s a conseque
ve an RPS in
rces. Florida
ransportation
mass supplies
distances and
o‐Ag submar
ral, applies
e chemicals.
s between p
nd bioplastics
is submarket
can even shift
he case of U.
ucrose syrup
t Plant is anot
duct of bioma
that facility.
crease bioche
tocks. Positiv
y 2020. Othe
n tons of wh
. Chronic sho
ne using rene
ls; USDA res
n drilling and
ations of pect
r are focused
osal will make b
ets it will be feed coal.
ompete well
should the m
ence to a Ren
place and a
has the pote
n costs may
; other state
reduced tran
rket, and seve
processes or
Biochemical
rocesses and
s, often funct
t is therefor
t the emphas
S. Envirofuel
bricks after t
ther example
ass sugars th
emical produc
ve signals exis
er positive s
hich are curre
ortages are sp
ewable feeds
earchers in F
fracking. The
tin, polysacch
on evaluatio
bioenergy more
asible for bioen
only when c
market cost of
newable Port
re creating a
ntial to be su
be prohibitiv
es in the reg
nsportation c
eral strong op
r organisms
products mo
d feedstocks.
tion as comm
re likely to i
sis away from
ls, which swit
the company
e; researchers
hat may beco
ct commercia
st in the form
signals includ
ently produce
purring partn
stock. Inform
Florida have
e U.S. Hortic
harides, and p
on of these pr
e competitive an
nergy to displace
costs for prim
f oil remain a
tfolio Standa
a market for
upplier to sta
ve. Further, t
gion would h
osts relative
perations are
to convert
ove closely w
. The byprod
mercial bioch
ncrease viab
m bioenergy a
tched its pla
y lost much of
s at that facil
ome even m
alization in Flo
m of Coca Cola
de market‐d
ed annually f
erships focus
mation‐sharin
achieved pro
cultural Resea
peel waste fo
roducts, with
nd so creates e
e baseload coal
11 | P
mary sources
bove $80, bio
rd (RPS).3 Tw
biofuels tha
tes where th
the southeast
ave a compe
to Florida. Ov
gaining a foo
compounds
with the bioe
ducts of bioe
hemical feeds
bility of bioe
as the main o
nned output
f its grant fun
lity are devel
more valuable
orida and lev
a’s plan to pro
riven bioche
from oil for u
sed on comm
g has also l
oof of conce
arch Laborato
or these purp
h potential fo
conomic develo
l, and may redu
a g e
reach
ofuels
wenty‐
at can
e RPS
t as a
etitive
verall,
othold
from
energy
energy
stocks
nergy
output
from
nding.
oping
e than
verage
oduce
emical
use in
mercial
ed to
pt for
ory in
poses.
r new
opment
uce net
Cooperati
on the fac
BiocontSubmar
Biocontro
trends in
approach
psyllid, w
cost Florid
lost jobs.
conventio
uncertain
have alre
proof of c
the area
Commerc
as RNA I
applicatio
establishm
4 CRADAs arcontribute r5 http://wwlost‐reven
Figure 7Product
ive Research
ct that bioche
trolProdurket Matur
ol is steadily d
consumer s
beyond con
hich has wre
da’s economy
.5 While aspe
onal pesticide
ty, inadequat
ady been ide
concept, and
s of releas
cialization has
nterference
ons to the c
ment.
re Federally auth
resources (perso
ww.abcactionne
nue
7. Anticipate Leation (Current Im
and Develop
emicals are of
uctsity:
developing its
sentiment, an
ventional pe
aked havoc o
y over $3.6 b
ects of bioco
es, the oppor
te informatio
entified. Acad
proof of effic
se, maintena
s the endorse
(RNAI) techn
itrus psyllid
horized agreeme
onnel, equipmen
ews.com/news/r
adership in Biocmpediments), Ne
pment Agreem
ften more exp
s commercial
nd devastatin
sticides. The
on Florida’s ci
billion during
ontrol’s com
rtunities lie i
n on best pra
demic and go
cacy roles in b
ance, and d
ement of expe
niques, whic
and could b
ents between Fe
nt, etc.) to condu
region‐polk/new
chemicals ext 5 Years
ments (CRADA
pensive than
potential du
ng pest prob
prime exam
itrus farmers
the five prio
mmercial mar
n the fact th
actices, and th
overnment re
biocontrol. Th
data collecti
ert researche
h use gene
benefit from
ederal research
uct R&D consiste
w‐study‐citrus‐gr
FigPr
As).4 Market
their petroch
ue to cutting‐
blems that d
ple is citrus
. As of 2012,
or years, in ad
rket are limi
hat the prima
he lack of qua
searchers ful
here is oppor
on provided
ers. Other gro
expression t
research fu
labs and non‐Fe
ent with the mis
eening‐disease‐
gure 6. Anticiparoduction (Impe
impediments
hemical coun
‐edge researc
demand an “
greening, ca
citrus green
ddition to ap
ited by crop
ary obstacles
ality standard
lfill basic and
rtunity for co
d as a ser
oundbreaking
to fight pest
nding and b
ederal parties, by
ssion of the Fede
‐cost‐floridas‐eco
ate Leadership inediments Remov
12 | P
s are largely b
terparts.
ch advances,
“all of the ab
used by the
ing had repo
pproximately
p cycle need
– such as gr
ds, to name a
d applied rese
mmercializat
vice to gro
g innovations,
ts, have pot
business incu
y which both pa
eral lab(s). onomy‐36‐billio
n Biochemicals ved), Next 5 Yea
a g e
based
green
bove”
citrus
rtedly
6,600
ds for
rower
few ‐
earch,
tion in
owers.
, such
tential
ubator
rties
n‐in‐
ars
Biocontro
rusts, mil
and infes
private se
nematode
also used
plants are
The bioc
agricultur
growth. R
long term
industry.
agricultur
and seco
necessari
product a
Researche
part to co
between
diversity
fungal pe
shared un
pesticides
them and
BiophaSubmar
A consid
universitie
marked im
currently
and Smal
suppleme
biopharm
bioreacto
services f
applicatio
ol includes lab
dews, etc. G
tations. In Fl
ector researc
es. Primary o
as part of the
e also being in
ontrol subm
ral production
Research into
m to address a
At the same
ral products a
ndly, the wo
ly generate p
pplication).
ers suggest c
onsumer inte
$3 billion and
in crops pro
sts, it is estim
nderstanding
s, herbicides,
improve the
rmarket Matur
erable amou
es, and lead
mprovement
conducted a
l Fruit Resea
ents such as
ma applicatio
r. In both ca
for new man
ons. Compar
b organism a
lobally, an es
orida, with t
hers in bio‐n
organisms use
e arsenal of b
ncreasingly us
market has t
n in the state,
biocontrol ha
agricultural pr
time, two fa
are largely co
orkforce effe
proportional i
conditions tha
erest in mini
d $6 billion f
duced and a
mated that F
between the
, etc., will no
overall effec
ity:
unt of bioph
researchers
in commerci
at Florida Agr
rch in Tallah
antioxidants
ns from exi
ases, funding
agement of
ed to tradit
and field‐deri
stimated 10‐1
two (or more
ematicides, a
ed for the co
biocontrols. B
sed for bioco
the opportu
, but manage
as been ident
ractices that
actors mitigat
ommoditized,
ects are likel
ncreases in w
at welcome
imizing pestic
or the biocon
a physical set
lorida repres
e private sect
ot displace c
ctiveness of a
harma resea
have identifi
ialization. Sta
ricultural and
assee, which
s. Similarly, t
isting ornam
for critical h
existing crop
tional applic
ved element
16 percent o
e) growing cy
an estimated
ontrol of pes
Botanicals, vo
ntrol.
nity to prod
ement and pr
tified as a con
may have far
te the potent
, and margin
y to be sma
workers involv
potential for
cide use. Int
ntrol market.
tting that cre
ents as much
tor and IFAS‐
onventionally
pplications an
arch is curre
ed short term
andout exam
d Mechanical
continues to
the UF IFAS
mental crops
hires will allo
ps are requir
cations for t
s to reduce c
of all agricultu
ycles, cumula
12% of Flori
ts include ba
olatiles and oi
duce compe
oduction com
ntinuing need
r wider reach
tial growth o
ns do not acc
all (i.e., expa
ved with prod
r continued g
erviewees co
. Because of
eates unique
h as 10% of t
‐based resear
y produced c
nd thereby im
ently being
m funding ne
ples include
University’s
o yield comm
Tropical REC
using speci
ow them to
red for adopt
the same c
crop losses f
ural producti
ative losses a
ida’s soybean
acteria and v
ls derived fro
etitive resear
mplexities lim
d, and it has t
ing effects th
of biocontrol
commodate h
ansion of inv
duction, sales
growth in bio
onverged on
its year‐roun
e opportuniti
the market. E
rchers that b
chemicals bu
mprove crop y
conducted
eeds that wo
research on
(FAMU) Cen
mercializable
C is prepared
ialized equip
reach full po
tion of comm
rops, biopha
13 | P
rom pests, w
on is lost to
are significan
n harvest is lo
viruses; insect
om various pa
rch and enh
mit its adoptio
the potential
han just the F
investments:
higher cost in
vestment wi
s and market
ocontrol, than
a global val
d growing se
es for anima
Estimates ref
biologically de
ut will supple
yields.
in Florida’s
ould likely res
Muscadine g
nter for Viticu
potential for
d to produce
pment such
otential. Exte
mercial bioph
arma applica
a g e
weeds,
pests
t. Per
ost to
ts are
arts of
hance
on and
in the
lorida
: first,
nputs,
ll not
ing or
nks in
lue of
eason,
al and
flect a
erived
ement
state
sult in
grapes
ulture
r food
e new
as a
ension
harma
ations
14 | P a g e
substantially increase return on investment, in part through typically higher market prices for end
products.
Biopharma plants are designed and engineered to produce large quantities of drugs, vaccines or other
health‐related compounds. Florida has significant biopharma achievements, including 24
commercialized UF‐based patents on biopharma products. Market research6 suggests that Florida has
about a 25% chance of becoming a top biopharma crop producer in the next 5 years with existing
conditions, or up to a 50% chance if the most significant impediments (including financing, water supply
issues, and pest management) are resolved quickly.
Informing growers of new biopharma
applications for their crops through targeted
outreach should strengthen the market for
value‐added byproducts. Due to the diversity
of biopharma crops, there is considerable
variation among production processes in the
biopharma submarket. Florida has the
capacity to grow these crops – and
researchers are aware of their higher value.
The key is to ensure that growers develop the
confidence to invest their production
resources in further market development.
SelectedCurrentandPotentialBio‐AgCropsThroughout the research conducted for this project, several crops emerged that hold the most visible
potential for new commercial Bio‐Ag products. Currently produced and potential crops that were
identified as being nearest a commercialized scale or operation are summarized below in Table 2 and
Table 3, respectively. More than 70 crops were assessed during this study, and detailed agronomic
analysis of each crop is provided in the Appendix.
6 Based on responses to questions posed in this study to more than 60 Florida professionals in Bio‐Ag (Report to FDACS:
Research, Data Collection and Surveys Regarding Bio‐Agriculture Preliminary Report, January 2014)
Figure 8. Tropical REC Greenhouses
15 | P a g e
Table 2. Selected Bio‐Ag Crops Currently Produced
Crop Submarket(s) Use(s)
Eucalyptus Bioenergy Biomass Energy
Sugar Beets Bioenergy Ethanol
Sweet Sorghum Bioenergy Ethanol
Citrus Bioenergy/Biochemicals Ethanol, Chemicals
Pine Biochemicals Terpene for fuel, rosins (ink etc.)
Avocado Biopharma Skin care, cooking oil
Muscadine Grapes Biopharma Antioxidants, other supplements
Table 3. Selected Potential Bio‐Ag Crops
Crop Submarket Use(s)
Carinata Bioenergy Drop‐in jet fuel, other fuel types
Jatropha Bioenergy/Biocontrol Bioenergy, toxic control of pests
Moringa Bioenergy/Biopharma Biofuel, food supplements
16 | P a g e
III. RecommendedStrategiestoAdvanceFloridaBio‐Agriculture
Producers and researchers believe that Florida could be within the top three Bio‐Ag states in the
country, with obstacles removed. They cite Florida’s strong agricultural industry, its year‐round growing
season, existing supply chain for some submarkets, and existing infrastructure for distribution.
Opportunities cited include funding, processing capacity, institutional knowledge of specialized industry
practices, and improvement of recognition for research activities in general. Obstacles to rapid
acceleration in the sector generally lie within funding, information sharing, and commercialization
pathways.
Research funding took a hit during the recession, and aggressively recruiting the specialized hires in
bioinformatics, microgravity, and other highly‐skilled fields will be needed to substantially raise both the
profile and productivity of Florida’s Bio‐Ag market. A successful ecosystem of people and skills will bring
about the decisive expansion that currently lies partially dormant within this nascent industry; 50‐70%
of additional funding that could be put to immediate use in Bio‐Ag by Florida researchers would be
invested in jobs.
Florida’s significant research activity already underway is often not publicized outside of academia,
largely due to the spread out nature of the state’s geography and the lack of clustering of activity. A
dedicated liaison role for FDACS may be appropriate to “connect the dots” between research
achievements and private sector interests, at least in the early years of a concerted effort to increase
Florida Bio‐Ag. Numerous agencies, institutions, and entities are deeply involved in various aspects of
Bio‐Ag research, funding, and commercialization, but often without knowledge of each other. By acting
as a liaison between growers, researchers, and potential private partners, FDACS can help resolve these
communication deficiencies.
FDACSLiaisonRoleFlorida has been recognized as one of the largest Bio‐Ag states, measured by number of states with
employment growth in more than one Bio‐Ag submarket.7 Yet the fragmented nature of the diverse
markets for Bio‐Ag products translates into an inconsistent framework for basic and applied research.
Processors and producers are unsure of where to find information beyond basic research; opportunities
for collaboration are difficult to identify, and opportunities may be missed due to geographical
dispersion. One innovative entrepreneur invested $15 million of private capital into a series of profitable
operations to optimize former citrus processing assets. The owner was eager to learn if other assets
throughout the state could be scaled up similarly, or were interested in collaboration. Currently, outside
of academic research, there is not a clear path to sharing this knowledge.
Information sharing of research and commercialization activities currently occurs at a variety of venues,
depending on subject. Forums frequently cited by Florida researchers and private sector partners
include:
Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)
Plant and Animal Genome Conference
7 Battelle 2012 Bio State Bioscience Industry Development
17 | P a g e
International Horticultural Congress
Florida State Horticulture Society
Avocado Growers Association
Sugar Cane League
American Society of Agronomy
International Society of Sugarcane Technologists
Sugarcane Variety Development Program
Sugarcane Variety Committee
UF/IFAS & EDIS Publications
Society of American Foresters
Florida Academy of Scientists
The Association for the Advancement of Industrial Crops
Society of Economic Botany
Florida State Horticultural Society
International Citrus and Beverage Conference
International Society of Sugar Cane Technologies
Workforce needs within the sector are specialized. IFAS provides a list of critical hires on its Research
Roadmap that includes bio‐informaticists, computational biologists, biochemists, and genomic
biologists. Florida’s supply of specialized scientists and researchers is less well recognized than
competing states like Massachusetts, Maryland, Texas and California. Florida has 5 universities
considered “Very High Research” by the Carnegie Classification of Higher Institutions, and 3 considered
“High Research,” which is comparable to other states, as shown in Table 4. As a state with a large
geographic area, the “clustering effects” (including information sharing and synergy in research) are
weaker than in other locations, making it critical to strengthen communication among research
operations. Table 4. State Comparison of Research Institutions
State
Very High Research Institutions
High Research Institutions Notes
California 10* 2 * 6 of the 10 are within the University of California System
Florida 5 3
Massachusetts 6 5
North Carolina 3 2
Texas 4 8* * All are within the University of Texas system
Information sharing also occurs at the marketing networks level, and Florida has at least 18 trade groups
which fulfill this effort for the traditional agricultural markets including the Florida Farm Bureau, Florida
Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association, etc. Within each trade group, there are members that are
18 | P a g e
actively involved in Bio‐Ag. Members have indicated that the trade groups are relied upon for marketing
messaging and understanding of policy issues affecting industry.
As a logical focal point for Bio‐Ag activities, FDACS has the potential to fulfill this role. Coordinating the
communication regarding available funding (such as CASIS for KSC access), opportunities for
collaboration in applied research, advancements in crop management for evolving crops, and the
sharing of information relating to developments in distribution and processing networks are all essential
elements in the Bio‐Ag commercialization cycle during its emerging years. A dedicated liaison role for at
least a complete multi‐year cycle could achieve significant advances in attaining industry strength and
momentum within Florida.
Finally, basic and applied research, and proof of concept research, is generally funded through public
sources such as our universities and government agencies. The pathway to commercialization requires
proof of efficacy or ability to scale up, regulatory approvals, and ultimately manufacture. This latter half
of the cycle is in its early stages in Florida, and will probably require government support to achieve
leadership in Bio‐Ag. Government support includes funding and positive market signals, which could be
provided at the state and local levels. Examples of local support include partnerships for R&D campuses;
and example of Federal support is the Department of Defense’s preference for drop‐in bio‐fuels.
Table 5 summarizes strategies that have been identified to aggressively accelerate the maturity of the
Florida Bio‐Ag market.
Table 5. Summary of Bio Ag Development Strategies
Identified Strategy Desired Outcome Actions
1 Support Bioenergy through Policy Signals, Funding, and Outreach
Restore confidence among current and potential ethanol producers
Facilitate breakthroughs leading to new commercial bioenergy crop cultivars
Reach cost‐effective critical mass of growers
Support applied research faculty and facilities
Recruit and educate growers through IFAS extension
Raise awareness of ISS access and funding
Evaluate the costs and benefits of State policy regarding biofuels and bioenergy
2
Support Biochemical Market Development Through Research and Funding
Biochemical product development from promising feedstocks
Transition from planning to commercial production
Convert startups to larger scale biochemical production
Support applied research at participating Florida universities
Generate seed money for early development and advanced development opportunities
3
Support Biocontrol Commercialization
Establishment of networking and funding resources for potential biocontrol entrepreneurs
Jump‐start a new commercial market
Produce a new liaison role to match academics and government with the private sector
19 | P a g e
4
Increase Florida’s Capacity to Research and Commercialize Biopharma Products
Development of proven management practices and processing technologies for biopharma crops
Knowledgeable growers armed with innovative cover crops and alternative revenue sources
Fund critical hires at university biopharma research facilities
o Faculty o Graduate students
Establish business incubators at research sites
Raise biopharma priority through IFAS extension
20 | P a g e
GOAL OUTCOME
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOME
OUTPUT
ACTIVITIES
INPUT
1 Support Bioenergy through Policy Signals, Funding, and
Outreach
ABOUT THIS GOAL
A handful of private bioenergy companies have begun preparation in Florida, and some are on
the verge of full commercial operation. However, producers expressed uncertainty about the
ethanol market because of shifts in State policy regarding renewable fuels and this factor was
cited as bioenergy producers’ biggest obstacle to success. While promising feedstocks and
proven Brazilian technology make commercial ethanol production possible, the market remains
limited. Biomass energy is viable in Florida thanks to the certainty provided by sales agreements
and export markets
in Europe, which
has minimum
renewable energy
standards. Drop‐in
jet fuels are also
gaining traction in
Florida, thanks to
the market arising
from the U.S. Air
Force’s
commitment to use
renewable fuel. An
evaluation of the
economic impact of
bioenergy in Florida
would improve
understanding of
the potential for
bioenergy and may
stimulate further
investments in
research and
extension to
improve production
efficiencies, crop
yield, and grower capabilities.
BOLSTERED MARKET DEMAND, CAPABLE GROWERS, AND EFFICIENT
CROP PRODUCTION
Farmers benefit from new revenue streams to supply feedstocks such as sweet sorghum, Carinata, and others to a stronger network of researchers and private bioenergy producers
Restore confidence among current and potential ethanol producers
Alternative bioenergy crop revenue streams for farmers
Research units leverage stronger resources to attract private partners
Support critical hires at research institutions
Utilize Kennedy Space Center facilities to accelerate genetic improvement of feedstocks with microgravity
Strengthen extension to growers to communicate crop management practices
Policy and funding resources
State level data regarding costs and benefits of bioenergy and biofuels
Support applied research faculty and facilities
Recruit and educate growers through IFAS extension
21 | P a g e
2 Support Biochemical Market Development through Research
and Funding
ABOUT THIS GOAL
Biochemical products represent a high‐value opportunity for Florida’s Bio‐Agricultural sector,
which has the capacity to produce them from a variety of feedstocks and for a variety of end
uses. Existing research facilities in Florida have already developed biochemical applications,
such as the USDA’s research on industrial products from citrus peel waste for fracking.
Biochemical research is critical for developing valuable co‐products, which share strong links;
the Stan Mayfield Biorefinery Pilot Plant, aside from its primary purpose to assess ethanol
feedstocks, has developed
biochemicals for use in high‐
value bioplastics. Polylactic
acid (PLA) is being produced
there from cellulosics, and
the refinery has improved
conversion efficiencies.
Additional opportunities
exist in the form of
butadienes and ethylene
products derived from
biofeedstocks, which are
valuable in roadway
construction and tire
production; pine chemicals
and terpenes are also
poised for growth as part of
a $3 billion industry based
on rosins and natural gas,
with uses in printing inks,
adhesives, and other
products. Funding will be
instrumental in growing the
biochemical submarket.
BIOCHEMICAL INNOVATION AND INVESTMENT LEADS TO
STRONGER BUSINESS PRESENCE
New biochemical products brought to production scale by private businesses
Stronger bioenergy viability due to new byproducts
Startups converted to production stage
New valuable biochemical products and byproducts developed
Productive biochemical research on Carinata, Moringa, seashore mallow, and other feedstocks
Transition from planning phase to commercial biochemical production
Funds for commercial opportunities o U.S. Envirofuels
Funding for university research o FAMU o UF / IFAS o Others
GOAL
OUTCOME
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOME
OUTPUT
ACTIVITIES
INPUT
22 | P a g e
GOAL OUTCOME
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOME
OUTPUT
ACTIVITIES
INPUT
3 Support Biocontrol Commercialization
ABOUT THIS GOAL
Biocontrol is particularly complex among the various Bio‐Ag submarkets, but also faces some of
the most intriguing opportunities. With the devastating impact greening has had on Florida’s
citrus industry and trends in consumer preferences, alternative forms of pest control are well
positioned for growth. Significant challenges affecting biocontrol commercialization include
efficacy concerns among growers and the lack of consistent quality standards. There is
considerable variety among biocontrol products, which include natural enemies for insects,
herbivores for weed control, microorganisms as biopesticides, chemical ecology, biostimulants,
and waste digestion byproducts. In the case of natural enemies and weed biocontrol agents, no
commercial producers exist in Florida. Due to rigorous regulatory approval processes, these
agents are best fit for
government and university
researchers to manage upon
introduction. These parties will
need to optimize efficacy and
implement formal certification
to gain grower confidence. The
opportunity for privatization is
embodied by the need for
ongoing releases, monitoring,
and data collection services
required for success. As such,
these products will require
public‐private partnerships to
reach commercial production.
Other innovations, such as RNA
Interference techniques and
virus distribution to invasive
aquatics, will benefit from
business development
programs to bring these
innovations to market, beyond
the laboratory.
NEWLY‐PRIVATIZED BIOCONTROL MARKET
DEVELOPMENT
Increased grower confidence
Best practices and quality standardization
Private sector involvement
Early market development; commercialization of new breakthroughs
Consistent product efficacy in the field
Optimize management practices for natural enemies
Train private partners in biocontrol services
Establish network resources
Liaison role for uniting researchers with the private sector
Business development programs
Critical research hires
23 | P a g e
4 Increase Florida’s Capacity to Research and Commercialize
Biopharma Products
ABOUT THIS GOAL
Dietary supplements, nutraceuticals, alternative medicines, and cosmetics all fall within the
biopharma portfolio. Commercial interest is growing with respect to new biopharma
applications of various crops around Florida, including ornamentals and others with more
conventional established uses. High‐potential research is beginning at various facilities
throughout Florida, such as the North Florida REC. That facility has been approached by a
private investor with a funding
offer for biopharma research
focused on Moringa; its leaves
can be ground up and used as a
food supplement, and it is known
to have various immunological
properties. Florida Agricultural
and Mechanical University
(FAMU) is also hosting promising
research at its Center for
Viticulture and Small Fruit
Research in Tallahassee, at which
researchers are able to grow cells
in vitro from Muscadine grapes
and produce antioxidant
supplements and anti‐
inflammatories. Further research
will increase the density of
nutraceutical grape content,
which includes grape skin
powder. Other research in
Homestead, at the UF Tropical
REC, could leverage opportunities
to develop new biopharma
potential for a variety of crops,
with a focus on direct economic benefits to local growers. These research facilities, if provided
adequate funding, could become drivers in innovation and commercialization in biopharma that
can put Florida on the map as a national leader.
BIOPHARMA MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND LOCAL ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Regional hubs serve dual functions as research centers and business incubators, providing farmers with alternative biopharma revenue streams and diverse cover crops
Field‐ready crops with new market niches
Small business incubators that connect growers directly to practical innovations
Research on crop yield, management practices, and processing
Outreach and assistance provided to growers
Funds for new critical hires at key biopharma research facilities
Funds for equipment
Small business incubators
GOAL OUTCOME
INTERMEDIATE
OUTCOME
OUTPUT
ACTIVITIES
INPUT
24 | P a g e
APPENDICES
25 | P a g e
AppendixA:IdentifiedFocusAreasforBio‐AgricultureResearchDevelopment
While the strength of commercialization opportunities can vary dramatically between the different Bio‐
Ag submarkets, all submarkets have untapped potential that could spur significant development of Bio‐
Ag in Florida. For any nascent market, researchers play an important role in making new discoveries that
expand the possibilities of commercialization. Many researchers in Florida stand on the brink of new
commercialization milestones and opportunities; generally speaking, though, they need well‐designed
funding and network communication mechanisms to fully exploit the opportunities for progress,
including links with private sector companies who can bring products to market. Overall, Florida has the
production capabilities necessary to facilitate commercial development of the four identified
submarkets.
Opportunities range from strong, near‐immediate opportunities to uncertain long term investments.
Each focus area has been assessed on the basis of select criteria that will determine viability:
Crop production in Florida, including suitability of the environment and potential for new crops
to be accommodated by the state’s lands;
Processing technology and the resulting cost structure; and
Research and development (R&D) and commercialization that drive growth prospects of each
focus area.
Each focus area has significant market potential, but all face individual sets of constraints that vary in
the risk they pose to further development. These focus areas – including the sentiments expressed by
private firms and researchers within them – were instrumental in guiding the overall investment
recommendations presented by this report.
BioenergyFocusAreas Drop‐in fuels – An alternative energy source proposed by some is to expand use of biofuels in
“drop‐in” form, which refers to butanol that can be used by existing vehicles and U.S.
distribution infrastructure. Drop‐in fuels have become a particularly strong bioenergy
opportunity, because they are immediately usable in existing technologies, with no need for
modification – and growers and commercial processors are already working together in Florida
(and beyond) to develop them. In Panama City, Applied Research Associates (ARA) is working
together with UF IFAS, FAMU, Canadian nonprofits and suppliers, and Chevron to refine the
process of extracting fuel oil from Carinata (Ethiopian Mustard seed). ARA is also working on
processing terpenes from pine as another drop‐in jet fuel. Support has been provided through
funding from DACS and others.
The U.S. Air Force provides a market through its commitment to use renewable fuels and is a
target consumer, as are commercial airlines. The Treasure Coast Research Park (Ft. Pierce) is
constructing a biofuels research facility, coordinating with the Commercial Aviation Alternative
Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). CAAFI is a coalition of airlines, aircraft and engine manufacturers, energy
producers, researchers, international participants and U.S. government agencies promoting the
26 | P a g e
development of alternative jet fuels. The Research Park is furthering CAAFI’s developed metrics
for determining where on the spectrum of commercial readiness particular fuels and feedstocks
lie in the realm of biofuels. CAAFI promotes drop‐in fuels exclusively due to the smooth
transition from development to practice. These network effects together create strong potential
in Florida.
Ethanol ‐ A handful of private ethanol biofuel companies have begun preparation in Florida, and
some are on the verge of full commercial operation. Sweet sorghum is one of the most
promising feedstocks, but other crops have also been explored. Sugar Beets attracted early
attention, and are potentially suitable to land in north Florida. Sugarcane is a proven feedstock,
but researchers believe it is far from commercial viability due to exorbitant equipment and
processing costs. Eucalyptus can also be processed at commercial scale for conversion to
ethanol. Despite the availability of diverse feedstocks, though, ethanol suffers from weak
market support. However, ethanol processing may yield marketable biochemical byproducts,
giving producers a degree of versatility and adaptability. Indeed, markets for these byproducts
are becoming essential to maintaining commercial viability across all bioenergy focus areas.
Biomass – Biomass is a category distinct from biofuels, as these crops are generally burned for
energy production. New viable biomass feedstocks such as Moringa and Eucalyptus are
attracting commercial attention, but certainty is still a critical gap in biomass market
development. The Gainesville Renewable Energy Center (GREC) has been operating successfully
since December 2013, generating energy from local wood waste at a full capacity of 102.5
Megawatts. Certainty supports this commercial operation in the form of a built‐in market from
an ongoing agreement to sell all of the GREC’s biomass energy to Gainesville Regional Utilities
(GRU) at a fixed (base) rate for 30 years, plus variable costs. The GREC is currently exploring
additional revenue opportunities that could arise from selling the fly ash byproduct – currently
discarded in landfills ‐ as a material for road pavement.
Europe’s minimum standards for renewable energy provide another source of certainty for
operations established to serve this market. Green Circle Bioenergy has installed its plant in
Cottondale for production of uniform wood pellets, primarily for export to European biomass
facilities. Plant capacity is up to 560,000 tons per year, with reliance on the energy content of
bark for its operations. The St. Joe Timber Division is one of its major suppliers. As an example of
the expanding market in the timber and biomass‐rich Southeast, Green Circle has proposed a
slightly smaller facility in Mississippi.
Research is also driving new cutting‐edge biomass processing technology, enhancing future
prospects. UF has researched high‐temperature conversion of pine chips, red oak and
agricultural residues to yield gas for electricity and has verified positive net energy for the
technology. Unlike the conventional approach, such as that used by GREC and several
processors of municipal solid waste in Florida, the experimental process yields little to no ash
requiring disposal. Without a downstream use for ash, this biomass conversion technology
would avoid most transport and disposal expenses.
27 | P a g e
BiochemicalFocusAreas High‐value biochemicals – Biochemicals are flexible in terms of both feedstocks and end uses,
and represent high potential for bioenergy and other operations to be more resilient in the
market. Biochemical building blocks and secondary chemicals depend on the type of sugar
extracted from a crop (e.g., “C5” or “C6”). The type of sugar is in turn determined by the
biomass feedstock itself and whether starches, cellulose or hemi‐cellulose is being converted.
Select biochemicals derived from sugars include the following:
o Lactic acid
o Succinic acid
o Acrylic acid
o Muconic acid
o Fumaric acid
o Glucarate
o N‐butanol
o Iso‐butanol
o Butanediol
o Butadiene
o Iso‐butene
Conversely, biologically derived oils (fatty acids) define an independent chain of conversions.
Oils can be fractionated to produce glycerols, syngas and a range of Fischer‐Tropsch liquids. As
with sugars, syngas can be converted to a variety of alcohols and secondary products that can
be transformed into solvents, emulsifiers, and oxygenates. Fischer‐Tropsch reactions generate a
broad suite of liquid hydrocarbons including both oils and fuels. Examples of “drop‐in” bio‐
hydrocarbons generated from biochemicals include:
o Renewable diesel
o Renewable gas
o Bio jet fuel
o Isobutinate
o N‐butane
o Naptha
Last, resins and bioplastics, which use alcohols and esters derived from sugars as feedstock, include:
o Mono‐ethylene and polyethylene
o Polyester
o Polyamides (nylon)
o Biodegradable plastic for bottles:
Bio PET (biopolyethylene terephthalate)
Bio PEF (polyethylene furanoate)
As previously discussed, standout opportunities for biochemicals include bio PEF and butadiene.
Bio PEF’s market is being led by large companies such as Coca Cola due to its pledge to use
28 | P a g e
bioplastics in its bottles, while bio‐based butadiene is arising through technological
breakthroughs thanks to research driven by scarcity in the market. Citrus extracts such as d‐
limonene are also emerging as key opportunities due to potential applications in fracking and
drilling.
BiocontrolFocusAreas Natural enemies and weed biocontrol agents ‐ Natural enemies are reared in some forms of
augmentative biocontrol. Augmentative biocontrol practices – consisting of periodic releases for
population surges of “living pesticides” ‐ are often applied for control of pests in greenhouses
and localized crops. To ensure clear and immediate results, this approach requires monitoring
and observation, including a precise understanding of the quantity of natural enemies applied
and the conditions under which they are released.
It has been stated decisively by experts in the field that grower outreach and education are
absolutely critical for facilitating commercialization of natural enemies and other biocontrol
products. For example, wasps are an effective product to sell to agricultural producers rearing
cows, horses, chickens, pigs and other livestock to control the flies drawn by their manure. DACS
and others have worked with these producers on other aspects of management, but there is
currently no guidance or collaborative
arrangement provided to these
producers on matters of biocontrol.
As a result, these and many other
producers are not aware of or
confident in the efficacy of biocontrol
or the existence of best practices. The
new DACS biocontrol laboratory in
Dundee has the potential to rectify
this deficiency with Tamarixia
radiata, the parasitic wasp that serves
as a natural enemy to prey on the
citrus psyllid and can help combat
greening. Educating growers on the
benefits of biocontrol and how to administer and monitor it will cultivate the confidence and
demand needed for a sustainable market.
Many herbivores are already established in Florida, but have yet to be fully commercialized.
Herbivores could be deployed to control one or more of Florida’s invasive weeds, such as:
o Alligator weed
o Hydrilla
o Air potato
While there are a handful of successful biocontrol companies in the U.S. targeting insect pests,
there are almost none offering products focused on weed biocontrol. Interviews indicate that
Figure 9. Parasitic Wasps; Dundee Biocontrol Lab
29 | P a g e
there are no such companies currently in Florida, despite the clear applicability of such products
in the state (UF faculty interviewed were aware of only one such company in the entire United
States – located in Montana). One possible explanation is the fact that the commercialization
process of weed biocontrol can require more time and capital than natural enemies, due to the
need to grow weeds and test products on them.
Genetic biocontrol technologies ‐ The development of plant‐based chemical signals that affect
insect behavior, both as attractants to beneficial insects and in terms of defense, is expanding
the horizons of biocontrol. The USDA remains the lead agency conducting this research, in
conjunction with other UF IFAS parties. The psyllid contributing to the spread of citrus greening
is a potential target of this research. RNA Interference (RNAI) affects gene expression and
development and can be used as an insecticide. While RNAI biocontrol technologies can be
derived from plants, that is not the current focus. FAMU has targeted the genetics of cultivars of
Muscadine and Florida bunch grapes that express higher levels of phytochemicals that enable
these varieties to resist insect pests and diseases such as rusts. However, research is required to
determine whether these traits are transferable to other fruits and crops.
The Tobacco Mosaic virus has impacted the production of tobacco and related species such as
potato, tomato, and eggplant. However, the virus can be readily manipulated to be a vector for
infecting undesirable plants, including invasive aquatics and pasture weeds. Unlike technologies
directed at furthering crop productivity, this program would respond to ecosystem threats in
Florida and improve grazing conditions.
BiopharmaFocusAreas Dietary supplements and nutraceuticals ‐ Commercial interest is developing in supplements
and related products; the North Florida REC in Quincy, having been approached by a private
investor, is starting a new project to grow Moringa for its commercializable biopharma
applications. While the leaves are suitable to be ground up and used as a food supplement
(human and animal) and seed oil can be used for domestic consumption or as a biofuel, the
highest value end uses are Moringa’s apparent anthelminthic (worm‐killing) and other
immunological properties.
Furthermore, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU) is conducting research
focused on antioxidants from Muscadine grapes and how they can be used to produce
antioxidant supplements and anti‐inflammatories. Researchers are able to grow the cells in vitro
to produce these antioxidants and have already submitted patents for the process. Ongoing
research aims to increase the density of the nutraceutical grape content, which includes grape
seed oil, grape seed extract and grape skin powder. Grape powder is marketed for reducing
blood pressure among other health functions. Florida’s wine industry has grown over the past
few years and exhibits an underutilized potential to monetize grape byproducts for biopharma
applications.
30 | P a g e
Figure 10. Florida Wine Industry Growth
Cosmetics ‐ Creams and lotions for skin care are gaining recognition as valuable biopharma
products. Avocado has been mentioned by Florida researchers as a promising feedstock for
these products, and meaningful research could facilitate market entry in the near term if
sufficient funds are provided. Limonene (previously mentioned as a biochemical product) is used
in soaps, perfumes, and air freshener products. An existing and expanding market in cosmetics is
pigments extracted from grapeskins; however, significant private investment is lacking. A
potential market, should the crop prove broadly viable, would be oil extracted from Moringa
seeds, used in perfumes and hair care products.
Table 6. Market Positions of Bio‐Ag Focus Areas
Current R&D Strength in
Florida
Opportunity to Attract
Major External R&D
Funding
Existing Florida Centers
and In
stitutions to Build
Around
Current Florida Industry
Linkages or Potential
Linkages
Likely to Result in
Form
ulation of Florida
Businesses
Related to Florida Issues,
Problems or Needs
Limited
Amount of Major
Competition From Other
Regions
Overall Opportunity Rating
Development Timefram
e Drop‐in fuels XX X X X X Good Mid
Ethanol XX X X X X Good Near
Biomass XX X XX XX XX X Very Good
Near
High‐Value Biochemicals
XX XX X XX XX XX Excellent Near
Natural Enemies & Weed Biocontrol Agents
X X XX X X XX XX Good Mid
Genetic Biocontrol Technologies
X XX X X X XX Good Mid
Dietary Supplements & Nutraceuticals
XX XX X XX XX X Excellent Near
Cosmetics X X XX XX X Excellent Near
Profile
Drop‐in F
ProductiFor bioen
pine, and
bioenergy
making th
the crops
roughly 8
mustard)
center piv
relative e
other bioe
IFAS resea
profits pe
into the o
of Florida
crop mak
biocontro
network
private fir
esofFocu
Fuels
ionnergy, major
others. Amo
y crops are e
hem less feas
effectively; s
feet tall, hei
relatively att
vots. For exa
ase. A potent
energy crops.
archers have
er acre per ye
operations of
. Its applicati
es it well‐suit
ol applications
in Florida, w
rm with an of
sAreas
viable feedst
ong bioenergy
exceptionally
ible as cover
some require
ight is a facto
tractive as a f
mple, a pean
tially viable co
. Planted duri
shown that C
ear as a wint
anyone plant
ions could inc
ted for bioen
s for controll
which include
ffice in Panam
tocks in Flori
y crops, a se
tall when co
crops. Irrigat
e as much as
or that makes
feedstock for
nut grower c
over crop for
ing the winte
Carinata, whe
ter cover crop
ting row crop
clude car fue
nergy. Furthe
ing nematode
es university
ma City.
Figure 11. C
ida include s
lect few are
ompared with
ion systems m
19 feet to th
s Brassica Ca
r drop‐in jet f
ould switch t
r Florida farm
er, Carinata ha
en managed e
p. Carinata is
ps; it can also
el, diesel fuel,
rmore, gluca
es. Carinata i
researchers
Carinata R&D Ne
ugarcane, sw
suitable for d
h other plant
must often be
he lowest po
arinata (“Carin
fuels, exerting
to Carinata i
mers, Carinata
as a 4‐5 mont
efficiently, ca
s a flexible cr
be grown in
, and jet fuel,
‐cyanides in
is being resea
and Applied
etwork
weet sorghum
drop‐in fuels
ts, increasing
e taller than
oint of the irr
nata,” also k
g less of a he
n the approp
a is also less in
th growing se
an add roughl
rop which ca
both the nor
, and its iden
the roots of
arched within
Research A
31 | P
m, Etuber™, b
specifically.
g capital cost
usual just to w
rigation syste
nown as Ethi
eight constrai
priate season
nvasive than
eason.
y $500 to far
n be incorpo
rth and south
ntity as a non
Carinata can
n a well‐deve
ssociates (AR
a g e
beets,
Many
ts and
water
em. At
opian
int on
n with
many
rmers’
orated
parts
n‐food
n have
loped
RA), a
32 | P a g e
Carinata’s low invasiveness and highly adaptable commercial potential shows that feasibility can vary
dramatically between feedstocks. Camelina sativa, another oilseed crop in the same family as Carinata,
is being evaluated by both IFAS and FAMU. While Camelina shares many of the same characteristics as
Carinata, IFAS suggested it is subject to more diseases (particularly rusts) and consequently less likely to
be deployed as an energy crop. FAMU has been testing the productivity and hardiness of Seashore
Mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica), another oilseed crop with a preference for coastal (saltspray) areas that
other crops will be less likely to tolerate. The plant is native, but not widely distributed in Florida.
ProcessingThe U.S. Department of Energy’s acknowledged technology pathways for drop‐in fuels include:
Upgrading alcohols to hydrocarbons
Catalytic conversion of sugars to hydrocarbons
Fermentation of sugars to hydrocarbons
Hydrotreating algal oils
Upgrading of syngas (CO and H2) from gasification
Pyrolysis or liquefaction of biomass to bio‐oil with hydroprocessing
Refining facilities to process crop oils into biofuels, according to professionals in the industry, are scarce
in Florida, compared to the Midwestern U.S. and especially Canada. The lack of infrastructure makes
other locations more appealing to potential biofuel operations, and stakeholders believe that subsidies
or other incentives are needed to build substantial additions to the crushing and refining infrastructure
in Florida. Byproducts of Carinata processing enhance its viability. The opportunities to commercialize
both Carinata and ARA’s process are enhanced by the marketing of meal (for animal feed) and diversion
of a portion of the stream of oil to uses such as lubrication. On a weight basis, Carinata meal was
indicated to be as valuable as the oil itself.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationCurrent production costs for butanol products are higher overall than for ethanol, and will require more
market development to be cost‐effective, but feedstocks like Carinata show promise in spite of this
barrier. ARA currently procures very little of its feedstock from Florida growers; they work with a
Canadian supplier instead. Thanks to ARA’s existing research relationship with IFAS (which grows
experimental Carinata crops), there is a clear opportunity to change this – additional funding can be
appropriated to devote more Florida acreage to Carinata, and possibly even to extension efforts to
encourage adoption by mainstream commercial growers.
The North Florida Research and Education Center (Quincy) has been evaluating an estimated 7,000 lines
(genetic strains) of Carinata to determine preferred variants for climatic zones in Florida and southern
Georgia. As a winter crop, many strains failed to thrive during the prolonged freezes of early 2014;
however, this outcome serves to better define which lines may remain useful under varying climatic
conditions, broadening the commercialization possibilities.
ARA staff identified the market for drop‐in fuel for the military alone to be about 3 billion gallons per
year. The total jet aviation market (including commercial operators and helicopter use) is approximately
33 | P a g e
17 billion gallons per year. Funding has been instrumental in preserving development momentum; ARA
received a Farm to Fuel grant to scale its process from the lab bench to as much as 25 gallons per batch
operation. The facility has benefitted from about $10 million in funding, including about $4 million in
Federal sources.
Ethanol
ProductionCorn is a reliable feedstock for ethanol, and the Midwest dominates this market. Sugarcane is a reliable
feedstock for advanced biofuel ethanol, but that market is dominated by Brazil. In 2010, approximately
700 million barrels of biofuels were produced globally. Over 45% of this was U.S corn‐based ethanol
while another 25% produced was sugarcane‐based ethanol in Brazil. While ethanol can be used as a
feedstock supporting a range of intermediate biochemical products, the majority of ethanol produced
was used for blending with gasoline. As the conversion technologies are fully deployed and ample crop
supplies exist, corn and sugarcane are expected to remain the most abundant feedstock for biofuels and
for biochemicals in the near term. With regard to alternatives to corn and sugarcane, cellulosic
feedstocks do not face the “food vs. fuel” argument but do require specialized (and currently costly)
enzymes that are yet to be completely commercialized. In contrast, commercialized companies utilizing
food‐competitive feedstocks for biofuels or biochemicals (e.g., corn or soy) face higher price volatility
and the potential for societal response.
Reliable feedstock, a fundamental component of ethanol’s production process, is the competitive
advantage that both processors and plant investors require for commercialization. There are several
promising candidates in Florida. Sugar Beets can weigh over ten pounds each, and with some beets
composed of up to 16% sugar, they have legitimate potential as a source of bioenergy. Beets could be a
good fit for growing in north Florida, but they are more susceptible to disease problems than some
other bioenergy crops. Commercial entities are currently trying to license energy beets. In addition, as
mentioned previously, sweet sorghum is an especially promising ethanol feedstock; it is popular among
current new market entrants.
ProcessingFermentation (a form of anaerobic digestion, generally with the assistance of specialized bacteria or
yeasts) is a metabolic process that converts sugars to acids, gases or alcohol (ethanol), with carbon
dioxide as a byproduct of the reaction. It is a primary processing scheme for ethanol operations.
Florida has relatively little ethanol processing infrastructure, relative to its competitor markets. Ongoing
investment plans in Florida include the adoption of Brazilian technology to produce ethanol from
sugarcane and sweet sorghum, using converted sod farms. Florida is at a “chicken‐and‐egg” juncture in
development of processing capacity; a market requires capacity, while capacity requires existence of a
market.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationThe most critical need for supporting ethanol commercialization is the reinstatement of the ethanol
blending mandate that was eliminated by the Florida Legislature. Without clear policy supporting the
34 | P a g e
market, ethanol struggles to compete with fossil fuels, the costs of which are held in check by the low
price of natural gas. Current pricing of ethanol in Florida, at about $2.10 per gallon, is well below the
price calculated by industry as their desirable level. In the near term, this bodes poorly, but plants are
generally built with a much longer term planning horizon. Up‐front costs are large and suggest a longer
term strategy is needed to recoup costs – it has been indicated that the mill in an ethanol plant
represents about 70% of the investment expense.
Researchers have expressed concern that too much focus has been assigned to producing high‐biomass
crop varieties, without defining management practices to support implementation in the field. Investing
in management could even reveal more efficient practices to manage potentially invasive feedstocks,
expanding the list of viable bioenergy crops. Some funding should target this deficit and address the
need for developing these best management practices.
Some Florida research facilities show special potential for both pure research and network
development. With funding from the USDA, DOE, BASF, and DACS, the Stan Mayfield Biorefinery Plant in
Perry is experimenting with ethanol extracted from biomass. The facility has tested beets, sorghum,
eucalyptus trees, mixed hardwoods, sugarcane and energy cane bagasse, and other feedstocks.
Productivity is increasing; since the plant has begun operating, fermentation time has been cut in half.
The plant managers and researchers have had their eyes on several potential private partners, such as
Bartow Ethanol, a company capable of making ethanol from citrus and using cellulose in fermentation,
but a deal has yet to be struck.
More significantly, several researchers concluded that their designs would be competitive only if the
price for oil was in the range of $150 per barrel or if the price of natural gas remained at $10‐12 per
thousand cubic feet. Oil currently hovers around $105 per barrel and the price of gas has dropped
significantly, to as little as $2‐3 per thousand cubic feet in late 2009 and early 2012, and is now roughly
double that. One DACS grant recipient suggested that economic feasibility and commercialization can
often hinge on synergy among operations. In this particular case, matching the cellulosic digestion
technology with another facility would improve overall productivity as the Bartow plant, which
processes orange peels, was believed to be running at about 40% capacity, i.e., it is not operating for
much of the year. Several researchers noted the importance of co‐generation where production heat is
recovered to improve overall energy efficiency or to contribute to parallel processes.
Brazil’s market for feedstock and ethanol distribution, and favorable pricing environment, is often cited
as a benchmark for Florida to achieve. While Brazil’s ethanol market is not subsidized currently, more
than a decade of strong mandates and incentives were in place while Brazil’s market reached maturity.
Because of the demand that developed for this product, reliable feedstock suppliers in Brazil are highly
developed, supporting a mature market and attracting new investment. Reinstating Florida’s RFS would
be a solid first step toward assembling a similarly strong ethanol‐friendly business climate.
Biomass
ProductionBiomass has its own share of fitting feedstocks; among these, accumulation of mass is unsurprisingly a
critical attribute. Because of its high rate of growth, Moringa (discussed in more detail below under
35 | P a g e
Biopharma), is being evaluated as an annual or short‐term crop for its biomass potential. FAMU is in its
6th season from its first planting with no decline. Similarly, Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and
several varieties of Eucalyptus are being explored at IFAS’s Plant Science Research & Education Unit in
Citra and at FAMU’s Farm. Eastern Cottonwood is native to the southeastern US and has a prior history
for reclamation of phosphate mines in central Florida; Eucalyptus is non‐native, however.
ProcessingIn 2009, the overwhelming majority of Florida’s biomass energy capacity in the electric power sector
was made up of landfill gas and municipal solid waste. Because the process of generating electricity
from landfill gas and municipal solid waste is generally considered a waste reduction tool first and
foremost, with energy as its secondary benefit, this suggests that the electric power sector was not
especially focused on biomass as a priority for electricity supply. Florida’s commercial and industrial
sector, meanwhile, showed a striking contrast with the electric power sector; most of its capacity was
focused on wood and derived fuels, and practically none at all was attributed to landfill gas or municipal
solid waste. This may indicate an exploitation of waste streams (wood debris) in generating additional
energy.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationCertainty, like the contractual certainty enjoyed by the GREC, is necessary to induce private
organizations to enter the market for bioenergy. The Center receives fuel from producers within a
“woodshed” radius of 75 miles and an average producer radius of 47 miles. All fuel is transported to the
facility by truck, with deliveries made 5 to 6 days a week from between 100 and 150 trucks a day. GREC
pays the freight costs; all timber is marked so volumes and distances can be tracked. GREC consultants
emphasized that biomass operations will not work economically with a rail delivery system if the
transport distance is less than 300 miles. A challenge in Florida is the absence of collection areas that in
turn have access to rail.
The supply chain for the GREC involves 40% of the wood coming from urban sources, primarily tree
debris and vegetative waste. Sixty percent comes from forestry, including logging residuals and trees.
Roughly half of the forestry supply derives from “low‐grade” (non‐merchantable) stands and mixed
hardwoods while the balance is residuals from traditional pulp logging operations. No treated boards or
construction materials are accepted due to the presence of nails as well as the requirements of the
facility’s air quality permit that prohibits the higher emissions given off by these sources. GREC staff
indicated that the urban and forestry sources provide essentially identical energy yield on a dry pound
basis.
Further commercialization at this location, i.e., adding new boilers, is not possible because of acreage
limitations and requirements to protect on‐site wetlands and to provide buffers (despite the industrial
designations of adjoining uses). Suppliers are incentivized to participate in GREC’s supply chain, through
GRU’s forest stewardship incentive which provides $0.50 per ton for suppliers are certified under the FL
Div. of Forestry’s Stewardship Program and $1.00 per ton under the Forest Stewardship Council’s
sustainable practices program.
36 | P a g e
Although the GREC has access to potential commercial byproducts, the main change needed to make
GREC effective, according to its leadership, is a clear energy policy for Florida; again, reinstatement of
the RFS would qualify. More power could be sold at full capacity if such a policy were designed to
encourage it.
High‐Value Biochemical Products
ProductionCrop production considerations for biochemical products largely mimic those for bioenergy. A new
market offered by biochemicals includes the pine chemical industry, part of a $3 billion chemical
industry based on rosins and gas. Within the Florida timber industry, a well‐developed supply chain
exists for pine tree production. Paper and pulp are produced from the timber harvest. Processing
differences divert primary and secondary products from the feedstock for biochemical applications.
ProcessingProcessing of paper and pulp are well established in Florida. The additional processing to generate
biochemical products includes steps to upgrade chemical byproducts from pulp to compete with
petroleum products. One project funded through an Office of Energy grant looked to develop ways that
produce more terpene from pine and recover it cheaply to expand chemical markets, and possibly liquid
fuels ‐ with a target of jet fuel, which has the highest return, currently at $35/gallon. That process would
bypass the fermentation of sugar that other Bio‐Ag processes use, and would utilize the plant’s own
chemical conversion process.
As with bioenergy, byproducts or co‐products are vital for financial feasibility at the current stage of the
biochemical products market in Florida. Wood pellets produced as a byproduct of pine chemical
processes are a valuable commodity shipped to Europe, again driven by European renewable energy
mandates. This demonstrates the close synergy between many bioenergy and biochemical operations.
The costs of processing technology and specialized equipment serve as primary limiting factors in the
realm of biochemical products.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationIn 2012, the greater U.S. chemical industry was a $769.4 billion integrated enterprise, supporting an
estimated 784,000 jobs at an average salary of $84,700 (41% greater than the mean salary of all
workers), and contributed significantly to American exports. Industry sales grew more than 63.3% during
the decade 2002‐12, or 5.22% per year. However, increasing efficiencies have resulted in a 15.4%
decline in employment over the same period. Increased investment in R&D was commensurate with the
growth in sales and comprises about 7.4% of the sales totals. Investment in capital expenditures –
infrastructure for production – increased by nearly 71% and now represents 5.0% of sales totals.
The industry remains dominated by petroleum and natural gas inputs. Petrochemical production
represented about $97 billion of the larger chemical market. Chemical manufacturing (as a separate
component of the industry) generated about $41 billion in revenues. As a point in sales, agriculture
37 | P a g e
nationally consumed more than $28.4 billion worth of the chemical industry’s output (primarily as
fertilizer).
Achieving sufficient economies of scale to support commercialization in Florida generally requires co‐
products with higher margins and niche markets. The key issue for achieving overall feasibility of
biochemical products is the threshold at which biochemical substitutes can compete with petroleum
based products. An important advantage for biologically based products is that they have a much
smaller environmental footprint than petroleum based products, which has consumer and regulatory
appeal. But this appeal alone is not enough to guarantee commercial success. For example, producers
cite the high costs of consumer packaging, like polyethylene, the thin plastic wrap on iceberg lettuce.
Currently, polyethylene film is primarily a petrochemical product, and as a result, varies in cost with
crude oil prices. It is also not biodegradable. Bioplastics are produced from renewable sources, and are
biodegradable, but currently are much more expensive. Hence, use of bioplastics is very low.
Critical mass requires large scale adoption, typically when a leader in market share adopts the
technology – again, Coca‐Cola’s goal of utilizing 100% bio‐PEF bottles for its beverages by 2020 is a
prime example. As the market prepares to meet this demand, early stages of co‐products will become
less important. Industry representatives indicate that there is interest in supporting such efforts in
Florida, based on investor sentiment, predicated on demonstration of reliable feedstocks.
Co‐products for biochemical product streams include butadienes and ethylene products ‐ which are
valuable, in relatively short supply and perceived as lucrative prospects for production from
biofeedstocks. Rubber, including that used in roadway construction and tires, depends on ethylene (and
butadiene produced downstream) which can be produced from either natural gas or from naptha and
related gas oils. However, natural gas yields significantly less butadiene than does liquid oils.
Consequently, the lower the price of natural gas, or the higher the price of naptha, the less butadiene is
produced. Because butadiene is primarily used in tire production, the higher the demand for tires, the
less butadiene is available for other uses and the higher the price. Production of butadiene from U.S.
refineries has declined as cheaper natural gas inputs have replaced liquid oil inputs. U.S. prices are
expected to continue to reflect a premium tied to the import of butadiene from Asia and Europe for at
least the next 3 to 5 years.
Because of the chronic shortage, production of butadiene directly, and not as a by‐product, is being
researched and commercialized. The European company Global Bioenergies teamed with Poland‐based
Synthos in 2011 to develop a process for converting renewable feedstock into butadiene, with the first
phase focusing on gaseous fermentation; this was to capitalize on the recent discovery of a direct
biological route to butadiene. In 2012, at least two more partnerships were formed to produce bio‐
based butadiene. Italy’s Versalis teamed up with Novamont and San Diego‐based Genomatica as a joint
venture to develop a process for making butadiene from biomass, with the intention of licensing the
process technology in Europe, Africa, and Asia. Secondly, Kansas‐based Invista teamed with LanzaTech,
an Illinois biotechnology firm, to jointly develop a way to convert industrial waste gas into butadiene,
planning for commercialization to begin in 2016. Later, Invista also formed another collaboration with
Seattle‐based biotechnology company Arzeda in 2013 to develop technology platforms for bio‐derived
processes, focusing on bio‐derived butadiene.
38 | P a g e
Natural Enemies and Weed Biocontrol Agents
ProductionExperts on the subject indicate that, while the field itself is continuing to expand, the number of natural
enemy producers in North America has declined. Many producers have become suppliers, meaning they
sell biocontrol products to end users but no longer rear natural enemies themselves. Experts believe
that, over the past few years, a total of about 20 producers in North America have declined to about a
dozen. Most production in the U.S. takes place in California.
Production of natural enemies generally takes place in insectaries, which balance a combination of
inputs that consist of the natural enemies themselves, the pests that they are meant to control (as a
food source), and banker plants to harbor these ecosystems. Environmental controls focused on
temperature and other factors are important to maintaining these populations, and some state research
facilities, such as the Gulf Coast REC in Wimauma, have these chambers but are in need of resources for
renovation that will allow better control of the environmental factors. The DACS Biocontrol Laboratory
in Dundee is harboring Tamarixia radiata populations in Orange Jasmine banker plants and is
experimenting with the production process as part of a series of structured releases. This facility could
be a crucial pilot project in revealing optimal production strategies as part of a concerted biocontrol
effort, and could even reveal the optimal strategies for private sector involvement.
ProcessingThe preparation of natural enemies for market is an issue of rearing and preparing for release in a field
environment. Researchers have observed some inconsistencies between results in the lab and in the
field, and this is a source of additional needed investigation. This uncertainty has been said to increase
costs for users of these products, deterring some potential consumers. One aspect of needed processing
is optimization of parasitism rates; researchers have noted that natural enemies such as Tamarixia
radiata show strong parasitism rates of up to 80% abroad, but hover near 20% in Florida. Additional
research will reveal the processing requirements that can increase this percentage to a threshold that
makes natural enemies viable in a field context.
Another aspect that is necessary to integrate into the system of natural enemies is quality control and
standardization. Many growers are hesitant to adopt biocontrol strategies because no standardized
metric exists to signal a legitimate product and, as a result, many of the suppliers in the market sell
insects that are malnourished or diseased themselves, and which often fail to deliver results.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationInsects have been gaining new traction within biocontrol in the U.S. in the past few years, though
analysts have said that Canada and Europe are ahead of the curve and popularized this method far
earlier. This is could be due to the regulatory environment in the U.S., the burden of which varies from
state to state. This regulatory environment is unlikely to change, however, due to the fact that many
researchers believe it is fully justified and is appropriate to mitigate the significant risk posed by
potential invasive species which can be highly disruptive to ecosystems and nearly impossible to control
if left unmanaged. Another commercialization impediment is the fact that biocontrol can be complicated
and management‐intensive; growers are not always prepared with the knowledge required to
effectively
institution
indicative
The gene
differentia
biocontro
that the U
It is highly
According
y adopt the
nal knowledg
e of the lack o
ral impressio
ated product
ol companies
U.S. is not a le
y likely that
g to some re
practices or
ge is significa
of critical mas
on is that mo
ts. There is a
such as Syng
eader in the g
many new na
esearchers, th
to manage t
nt; in econom
s in this subm
ost biocontro
presence in
genta and Kop
global biocont
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
atural enemy
here are app
the additiona
mic terms, th
market.
ol companies
the Florida m
ppert; this m
trol market.
. Biocontrol Ven
Biocontrol Prod
y products ca
proximately 1
al costs asso
his is conside
s, by nature,
market, howe
arket domina
ndors
ducts
an be reveale
150 species o
ociated with
red an inform
are small an
ever, of very
ance is consis
ed through ad
of predatory
39 | P
them. The la
mation gap, a
nd produce h
large interna
stent with th
dditional rese
mites dwell
a g e
ack of
and is
highly
tional
e fact
earch.
ing in
40 | P a g e
Florida whose prey are unknown. This represents much underutilized capacity for the state to use its
own native insect population to control pests in a focused manner, assuming there is an ample supply of
researchers willing to study them. Interviews suggest that UF biocontrol researchers have seen a decline
in resources for faculty members, creating a stark contrast with the abundance of the late ‘80s and early
‘90s. However, the perception is that this is a general pattern at the national level, and is not especially
severe in Florida relative to other states. In fact, UF entomologists boast the largest entomology
program in the country, and the sentiment is that researchers perceive Florida as solidly competitive
with other states. Interviews suggest that Florida’s competitive position actually helps it attract high
quality researchers; deterring human capital in the field of biocontrol specifically does not appear to be
a significant threat.
Florida’s market was found to be targeted by 51 suppliers of commercial natural enemies and
biopesticides (with about 250 operating globally); producers have been more scarce, with only about 20
in North America. None of these producers are located in Florida, according to UF entomologists. With
an average size of 10 employees, producers are generally small in size. In total, recent studies found 56
commercial invertebrate biological control products and 21 biopesticides available in Florida. Only 5 out
of the 20 producers in North America produce more than 3 species; this is a testament to the high
degree of specialization among different companies (Leppla).
One crucial link in the commercialization process is the transition of new technology or practices from
the laboratory to the field, or from researchers to producers. Extension programs in UF IFAS facilitate
this step in the process. Extension programs can make a few changes to facilitate this process more
effectively. One example would be deliberate scaling up to mass rearing of natural enemies; rather than
stopping after a small population of a natural enemy is assessed and tested, experimenting with
management practices focused on larger supplies would go the extra step to help a producer adequately
manage these supplies in the field and empower them to operate profitably and efficiently. Again, the
DACS Biocontrol Lab in Dundee is a fitting candidate for this approach, but it would require funds to hire
additional faculty members.
The facility could also hire technicians for applied services in the field; experts believe the key to
successful biocontrol commercialization is the presence of representatives working in person with
growers to help them obtain, apply, and evaluate the impact of biocontrol products. Maintaining these
individuals in the field is critical to successful commercial adoption of biocontrol in Florida. Through
hiring and deploying these technicians, with subsequent transition to the private sector, FDACS can lay
the foundation of knowledge sharing between suppliers and growers and support a new market through
its early stages of development to reach the threshold of self‐sustaining commercialization. Once these
trained professionals can demonstrate success to growers on a large scale through hands‐on services,
commercial adoption will be viable.
Genetic Biocontrol Technologies
ProductionProduction of genetic biocontrol technologies largely takes place in the lab, through research. Genetic
manipulation produces new crops that are more resilient to disease and pests. As such, scalability will
41 | P a g e
likely require investments in specialized laboratory equipment, and is likely to demand high‐skilled
employees.
Processing“Processing” takes on a new meaning in the focus area of genetic biocontrol technologies. This step
does not necessarily encompass changes applied to a particular crop per se. It could be the genetic
manipulation of a virus, for example. The Tobacco Mosaic virus has impacted the production of tobacco
and related species (potato, tomato, eggplant, etc.). However, the virus can be readily manipulated to
be a vector for infecting undesirable plants, including invasive aquatics and pasture weeds. Unlike the
above technologies directed at furthering crop productivity, this program would respond to ecosystem
threats in Florida and improve grazing conditions.
RNA Interference techniques developed by the USDA could be an effective strategy for controlling the
citrus psyllid. Funding this research and developing a network around it could help save money from lost
citrus yields while developing another new commercial product within biocontrol. Currently, RNAI
techniques are targeted at other pests, but additional funds could reveal new end uses that may align
closely with the need for citrus‐based biocontrol in Florida. Processing is likely to be high‐tech and to
involve high‐cost inputs.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationAgricultural Research Service (ARS) offices on the University of Florida main campus have emphasized
research in the “chemical ecology” of plants, including the generation of plant‐based signals that modify
the behaviors of insects. The ARS makes efforts to find commercial partners, to which patents can be
licensed, working through an Office of Technology Transfer. Importantly, many of these patents go to
companies outside of Florida, while consumption of the products takes place in‐state because the
problem and corresponding demand often arises within Florida. This distinction represents lost revenue
and market development that could otherwise have taken place in Florida. Incentives or network
strategies to focus these patent licensing efforts more on in‐state companies could provide a much‐
needed boost to market development in the state. Florida should be a top contender for biocontrol
development due to the unique pest problems in the state as well as the university, so increasing
development in Florida is feasible. ARS researchers have expressed their opinions that Florida has
between 25% and 50% probability of becoming the top biocontrol producer in the next 10 years, with a
100% probability of being among the top producers.
Dietary Supplements and Nutraceuticals
ProductionWith about 45 wineries in Florida, the capacity exists to supply grapes for promising biopharma research
efforts. Pomace, the grape powder byproduct that fetches about $100 per ton in the market, represents
a sizable fraction of the value of grapes for wine. Some wineries in Florida, such as Lakeridge Winery in
Clermont, sell their pomace to pharmaceutical companies in Georgia and elsewhere to be turned into
health food supplements. In these cases, the price of pomace tends to range between $100 and $250
per ton. For context, Muscadine for wine is valued at $380 ‐ $450 per ton and Muscadine as fresh fruit
sells at $1.00 ‐ $1.50 per pout or about $2,000 ‐ $3,000 per ton. Researchers note that Muscadine
42 | P a g e
Products Corporation captures the value of its own pomace to turn into the “purple powder” health
food supplement.
FAMU researchers point to significant growth in Florida’s grape industry in the last 15 years, due to
processing and vitification improvements. The volume is still small compared to Florida’s annual
consumption of about 58 million gallons per year. With ongoing research focused on Moringa and other
biopharma crops with similar applications, evidence indicates that Florida can support production of
several worthwhile biopharma crops.
ProcessingFAMU researchers are able to grow Muscadine grape cells in vitro to produce these antioxidants and
have already submitted patents. Ongoing research aims to increase the density of the nutraceutical
grape content, which includes grape seed oil, grape seed extract and grape skin powder. To date, bulk
nutraceuticals have been limited to those developed by Muscadine Products Corporation (a Georgia
firm). The role of pomace as a byproduct of conventional wine industry operations suggests that the
processing aspect of biopharma crops does not have to be prohibitively expensive, which can serve as a
supplemental benefit to established companies. With a process as simple as grinding being central to
the potential moringa production scheme, additional evidence is available to confirm that processing is
not likely to be too costly for dietary supplements and nutraceuticals.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationThe North Florida REC in Quincy is starting a new project to grow Moringa and study its biofuel and
biopharma applications, with the specific goal of commercialization. The leaves can be ground up and
used as a food supplement. The crop is native to India, and the REC fortunately employs plant
pathologists from India with the appropriate expertise. Researchers note, though, that while they have
plenty of lab space and equipment, they have a need for more staff. Between 10% and 15% of lab space
at the Quincy facility is vacant, though the lab and office space at the corresponding NFREC facility in
Marianna is full. As with many Bio‐Ag submarkets, funding applied research in such promising areas is
critical – and supporting business incubators will also be effective, especially for these biopharma
products that could readily be grown by producers savvy of emerging markets.
Indeed, much of the current impediments to commercialization, at least in the case of valuable
Muscadine grape byproducts, arise from information gaps among growers, as well as the lack of
economies of scale in commercial production – both issues that could be solved through supported
research. FAMU has found that the biopharma materials in Muscadine grapes demonstrate their highest
quality at particular levels of crop maturity, so growers need to know the optimal time to harvest. Even
having made this discovery, though, FAMU suggests that even more time needs to be spent studying
optimal management practices. The average size of Florida vineyards is reported to be about 10 acres,
making them unable to invest in specialized equipment and streamline biopharma‐specific management
practices that would enable them to efficiently tap into biopharma applications. With about 95‐99% of
grape pomace byproducts in Florida currently being simply discarded by commercial operators, there is
potential to better utilize these Florida‐grown crops. FAMU’s efforts in viticulture could be a biopharma
springboard for Florida’s grape industry. FAMU has expertise pertaining to antioxidant supplements and
other promising grape‐based biopharma products.
43 | P a g e
Cosmetics
ProductionProduction of cosmetics can involve feedstocks with already established management practices, which is
an advantage for risk‐averse growers who need to tap into emerging markets. For example, the
blanched skins of Florida peanuts yield ingredients used in cosmetics. In addition, avocados have been
shown to have properties that could yield beneficial high‐value skin care products. Many of these crops
are viable especially in South Florida.
ProcessingProcessing for cosmetics from crops can also be relatively simple; FAMU researchers have extracted a
variety of pigments from grapes and grape pomace with cosmetic and other applications which will add
to the base value of the grape industry.
ResearchandDevelopment(R&D)andCommercializationDeveloping cosmetic products from agricultural inputs is perceived to follow a much less complicated
federal regulatory pathway than other biopharma products, and may be inducing researchers to
substitute cosmetic development research in place of other biopharma research. However, a private
sector role is also important in these innovations – and researchers can work to attract more attention.
FAMU researchers have observed no private sector interest to date in commercializing viticultural
byproducts for nutraceuticals, but there has been interest in its role in cosmetics. Advancing that role
would require a processing unit (and technical staff) for grape skins and grapeseeds.
A common emerging theme among RECs is that access to capital is relatively strong, while the
availability of personnel to use this capital is often deficient. Also, the structure of funding can be better
designed to address tangible goals, rather than simply allocating generic revenue sources.
44 | P a g e
AppendixB1:CropSuitability
Several dozen crops with potential Bio‐Ag suitability have been identified that are currently growing in
Florida, at various levels. Some are existing food crops on artisan scale; others are grown widely for food
crops. Within current crops, a wide variety of Bio‐Ag applications are possible, but most have not
received adequate research to be considered commercialized for Bio‐Ag/nonfood applications. Because
the commercialization process is so nascent, detailed cost and profit per acre data are unavailable for
most potential bio‐ag crops in Florida at the current time. This is the information currently being sought
in the field by researchers and their private sector collaborators through testing and experience.
Extensive research is underway both at IFAS and through the private sector to identify additional
applications for existing crops. Researchers are continuously evaluating gene traits that may make an
existing traditional crop more suitable to bio‐ag than currently recognized.
Critical to the feasibility of Bio‐Ag is processing capacity. Crops grown as inputs for conversion to Bio‐Ag
products are referred to as “Feedstocks.” Processing plants that convert crops to biofuels or other
finished products require a reliable source of continuous feedstock, in volumes that support the fixed
and variable costs of operating the plant. As such, reaching a “critical mass” in feedstock production is
an important threshold to establishing the viability for investment in an ethanol plant, oilseed crusher,
or other multi‐million dollar facility. Accordingly, it is important to understand where existing crops with
potential to support Bio‐Ag are located. Based on the soil, climate, and other physical conditions, the
total Florida acreage potentially suitable for each crop has been quantified. In most cases, there are
preferred soil conditions, and more marginal conditions which could support the crop, but with higher
costs and management effort.
Of immediate concern, due to current disease issues and the economic impact to Florida communities,
are the Bio‐Ag applications for Citrus crops. Byproducts have been a major source of income for Citrus
processors traditionally, representing almost as much revenue as primary products (juice and produce)
in the most recent UF study of economic impact8. Rapid development of citrus products or byproducts
that allow better utilization of existing trees or acreage should be a high priority. Understanding where
these opportunities are clustered geographically will help focus these efforts.
CropScreeningAnalysisThis table qualitatively summarizes the relative maturity of these crops’ markets for comparison
purposes, but also provides yield and other empirical estimates at every opportunity where such
information is available.
A total of 52 crops were formally screened for their suitability for Florida, and divided into four
categories:
“Current” crops refer to crops and plants that are known to already be present in Florida; some
of these may already be used for Bio‐Ag purposes and some may only have the potential to be
used for Bio‐Ag purposes. However, these crops have not been the subject of any Florida‐
8 Mohammad Rahmani and Alan W. Hodges. 2009. Economic Impacts of the Florida Citrus Industry in 2007–08. FE802, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
45 | P a g e
specific Bio‐Ag research and development. Table B‐1 of Appendix B2 provides detailed
information on the 22 crops in this category.
“Future Alternative” (FA) crops refers to crops that have already been identified as suitable
candidates for Bio‐Ag ventures and are currently in advanced stages of research and
development. Table B‐2 provides detailed information on the 9 crops in this category.
“Future Other” (FO) Crops refers to crops that are not known to grow in Florida but have the
potential to be used for Bio‐Ag purposes. These crops have not been the subject of any Florida‐
specific Bio‐Ag research and development. Table B‐3 provides detailed information on the 5
crops in this category.
“Unsuitable Crops” refers to crops that were deemed unsuitable for agronomic cultivation in
Florida based on the screening analysis, whether for climate, soil, or risk of being invasive. These
crops were excluded from the GIS analysis. Table B‐4 is a list of the unsuitable crops and the
reason why it was considered unsuitable for this analysis.
Crops were identified for their potential submarket, including bioenergy, biochemical, biopharma, and
biocontrol; as is the case with traditional agriculture, many crops offer primary product and byproduct
revenue streams, and may fall into more than one category. Detailed information about growing
requirements, existing acreage, location, and other useful data is provided in Tables B‐1 to B‐3, along
with a “Supply Chain/Marketability” column to assign each current crop a category of “M,” “E,” or “F”
(Mature, Early, or Fragmented) to describe its commercialization status. “Fragmented” indicates a crop
has been researched and, in some cases, commercialized to a degree in one or more geographical areas
in Florida – but has not yet been fully developed. Note that only a handful of current crops, and no
future crops, are engaged in a mature bio‐ag market in Florida. While some future crops appear to have
special potential and have attracted significantly more investment or interest than others, none have
successfully traversed in full the development cycle laid out in this tech memo.
Categories were also assigned based on similarities in processing ‐ oilseed production versus biomass,
for example. Several of the current crops grown in Florida have multiple applications in the bio‐ag
industry. The crops fall within four categories defined by processing potential: oilseed, biomass, biofuel,
and biopharma/chemical.
GISAnalysisofPotentialBio‐AgCropsA GIS analysis was conducted to help map suitable locations for the 36 Current, FA, and FO crops. A
geodatabase feature class was assembled using available data from the Florida Land Use Cover
Classification System (FLUCCS) mapping program. From this dataset, polygons classified as Agriculture
(level 2000) were used. Next, county‐level soil (SSURGO) layers, USDA Plant Hardiness Zones, and other
various political boundaries (e.g., counties, water management districts), were overlaid to ‘cut up’ the
FLUCCS polygons. Once this process was complete, the data were dissolved based on the unique
characteristics of interest: land use description, soil type, hardiness zone, county, etc.
For each polygon, or unique set of attributes, the suitability for each of the 36 was assessed based on
the information provided in Tables B‐1 to B‐3. Tables B‐5 to B‐7 provide more refined information for
the Current, FA, and FO crops (respectively), along with the criteria that was used to assess the
suitability of a particular polygon.
46 | P a g e
Two sets of criteria were established – one based on acreage with preferred growing conditions
(“Average Management Cost”) and one based on acreage with marginal growing conditions (“Higher
Management Cost”).
Florida’s current agricultural acreage is about 9.2–9.5 million acres according to the Ag Census for 2007
and 2012. The total acreage of the FLUCCS‐based potential Bio‐Ag crops layer compares reasonably well
at roughly 8.3 million acres. Some crops show very high potential acreage, simply indicating that most
of Florida’s existing ag land has the appropriate soils, climate zone and other characteristics that the
listed crop requires – not that wholesale conversion of existing crops would suddenly occur. For
example, the research indicates that pumpkin seeds and soybeans can grow virtually anywhere in the
state, if suitability is determined on the basis of soil and climate alone. Similarly, site suitability for open
pond algae has little to do with soil and climate. In practice, all of the crops evaluated in this study will
have a unique set of constraints that would govern site suitability. Developing and mapping these
unique crop‐specific constraints was beyond the scope of the current project.
The resulting acreage for each crop was computed. Tables B‐8 to B‐10 provide statewide totals for each
of the Current, FA, and FO crops, respectively. Once the acreages for the individual crops were
determined, the data were aggregated based on processing subgroup (oilseed, biomass, biofuel,
biopharma) and suitability category (Current, FA, and FO). Also, given the citrus industry’s challenges,
abandoned citrus acreage has been identified by USDA. For purposes of identifying opportunities for
Bio‐Ag, the volume of abandoned Citrus acreage by County has been identified and mapped as well.
It should be noted that, with the possible exception of energy cane which is closely related to sugar
cane, crop management practices for each crop have not yet been established. As such, specific
planting, care/maintenance and yield optimization specifications have not been established. The USDA
soil capability classes are one way to narrow down potential planting locations for a given crop. The
classes are delineated by limitations that restrict the choice of plants that can be grown, such as risk of
erosion, shallow depth, and oversaturation of water. Some limitations can be overcome with artificial
drainage structures. The rating system can thus be used to prioritize planting decisions.
Figures B‐1 through B‐4 provide the crop potential for Current crops based on the processing subgroups
oilseed, biomass, biofuel, and biopharma, respectively. Figure B‐5 shows the locations of abandoned
citrus acreage in a similar manner. The locations suitable to one or more of the FA crops are shown in
Figure B‐6. For the FO crops, the oilseed processing subgroup (Figure B‐7) is shown separate from the
rest of the crops (Figure B‐8).
FurtherThis sectio
are curre
informatio
crop.
rAnalysison provides b
ntly in advan
on of the cul
The CreachiCurrentempecanolatoget
Jatropinawinquayieldthougfreezein32USAb
eTubegrowstodev35lbssweet
Swthtofroethvayie
–FutureAbasic informa
nced stages o
tivation prac
Camelinamustard aconditionsto its shosystemsdtemperatuclimateswmaincroppast experincreasesc
Carinata planting up to 6’ tant work indiceratures.Breedaplantsperforhighyieldsof
phaisatropicwiderangeofsantityandqualunder diversegh an occasionedamage,butcountriesarobetweenhardin
Energycellulosthesamas it ispopulatcuttingscane”)becomeresistan
erSweetpotatsinwarmseasvelopasweetps./tubervs.~1t potato(37%v
weetSorghumeplantsaporsugarcane, thom sweet sorghanol that comarietieswill regelds,ifconditio
Alternativtion and high
of research a
tices (establi
is an herbacand canola, thas.Thoughlistedrt season (70uringcoolerpures at the teewith little rainfps.Duetolimitrience and datcanbeachieve
t belongs to thall. Its elongatates that it mdingworkisbermpoorly.Undupto2.7tons/
calsmalltreeooils.Thecropclity.Thereisae conditions. Sn freeze protecatthesametimundtheworldnesszones9–
y canes are ssicbiomassratmefundamentas related to ction. It isa tros.Followingthis harvested oeinfeasibleandncethanregula
toisanherbacon.Usingconvpotatovariety1lbs.ofediblevs.18%).
misasummerajuice.Inaddite sapof sweeghum can bemes from cellugrow (likeeneonsallow(prob
veCropshlights of eac
and developm
shment, wee
ceous winter aat can reach 1dasbeingadap – 90 days),eriodsinsubtrens; thus, canfallduringsumtedbreedingeta from similaedthroughplan
he mustard fated tap root cmay be most seingdonetodederthesecondi/Ac.
orbigshrubwhcanbemechanlotofroomfoouth Florida sction should bmeverytolerad.The“Jatroph11withoptim
sugarcane hybtherthansugaralbotanicalchacultural practiopical/subtropieharvestofthonce a year fodnewcropisbarsugarcane.
ceousperenniventionalbreedwhosetuberseone)andwh
annualgrassthtion,itcontainst sorghum is eeasily fermenulosic breakdoergy cane) andbablysouthFlo
h of the 9 Fut
ment. Append
ed control, pe
annual from t1’ – 3’ height.ptedtotheregit could be inropicalenviron be sown befmmer, it canbefforts,onlyfewar oilseed cropntbreeding.
amily. It is anan reach oversuitable to semevelopvarietieitions,thebest
hichcanbegronicallyharvestrgeneticallybsoils and climabe provided asanttoseverehhabelt” laysbemaltemperatur
brids that havr.Hence,itis,baracteristicsofices, as a resicalperennialhefirstyear(“por typically, 5‐beingplanted.
alvinethatisdingtechniquearetentimesosedrymatte
hathasahighshighyieldsoextractedbymnted to produown of fibers.dproduceanoorida).
ture Alternat
dix B3 provid
est managem
the CruciferouIt can be growgionsofthenoncorporated innments.Seedlifore or afterbegrownon fawvarietiesareps, it is clear t
erected annur 3’ deep withmi‐arid regionesadaptabletottimetoplant
ownunderhigted.Itsoilyieldbreedingvarietate are suitabls this plant isheat.Jatrophaetween30°Naesbetween68
ve been selecbasically,asugfsugarcanewitsult of highergrass,propagplantcane”),th‐6 years whenTheenergyca
classifiedasaes,Dr.JaniceRlargerthanedrcontentisdo
concentrationofcellulosicgremilling.Once euce ethanol, asAfter harvest
other crop, tho
47 | P
tive (FA) crop
des more de
ment, etc.) for
us family, relawn under semrthernMidwesnto double croingscansurviva cash crop. Iallow fieldsbeeavailable.Buthat significant
al herbaceoush numerous lans with mild tohotclimateswillbetheear
ghorlowrainfadsarerelativeltieswithevenhle for its cultivvery susceptigrowscommeand35°S,and8°F‐104°F.
cted for theirgarcanevarietthfewmodific yields and datedvegetativheregrowth(“rn the yields danehasabette
arootvegetablRyan‐Bohacwadiblevarietiesoublethatofr
nofsolublesugeenbiomass.Sextracted, the ss well as addting the stalks,oughwithdecr
a g e
s that
tailed
r each
ted tomi‐aridst,dueoppingvelowIn dryetweentfromt yield
s plantaterals.to hotwhererlyfall,
allandlyhighhighervation,ible torciallyin the
r hightywithcationsdenservelybyratoonecline,ercold
lethatasable(uptoregular
garsinSimilarsugarsitional, mostreased
48 | P a g e
SugarBeet.Untilveryrecently,themainsugarsourcestofeedtheworldcamefromtwosources:sugarcanethatgrewinthetropicsandsubtropicsregionsandsugarbeetthatgrewinthetemperateregionsoftheworld.After11yearsofresearchanddevelopment,theSyngentaCompanycameupwithasugarbeet variety adaptable to the tropical region of theworldwhich has the same production of sugar/surfaceunitassugarcanebuttakeshalfofthetimetogrowandconsumesonethirdofthewater.
MoringaTree.Thisdeciduous‐to‐evergreentreeissmall,slenderandcanbearfruitandfloweryear‐roundunderfavorableconditions.NativetoIndia,theleavesofthistreecanbegroundupandusedasafoodsupplement.However,duetoitsreportedhighrateofgrowth(upto15’ofgrowthinoneyearfromseeds),thistreehasbeenidentifiedasapotentialbiomasssource.Moringagrowsinawiderangeofsoilsandisdrought‐resistantbutrespondswelltosupplementalirrigationandfertilizer.Thistreegrowsinwarmclimates(tropicsandsubtropics);freezeeventswillkillthefoliage,butthetreerecoversquickly.
SeashoreMallowisanherbaceouspinkfloweirngplantthatistypicallyfoundinsalty‐brackishmarchesalongtheEasternseaboardoftheUSA.Thishaspotentialapplicationasanoilseedcrop.ThisplantisnativetoFloridabutisnotwidelydistributed.Thisplantisrelativelyuniquebecauseitisaperennialhalophyte(growsyear‐roundandissalt‐tolerant).Forthisreason,thisplantisparticularlysuitedforareaswheretraditionalcropscannotbegrown,suchassalinizedfarmland,areaswithbrackishwatersupplies,sandycoastaldeserts,andaquaticecosytems.
49 | P a g e
AppendixB2:FiguresandTables
50 | P a g e
GIS ID Crop Product Category Regions Seasons Suitability Suitability score Comments Supply Chain/ Marketability
C_CROP1 Algae (open pond) Bioethanol and biodiesel
1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Where the annual mean temperature: >59°F. Low night temperatures and moderate day. Arid subtropics with annual mean of 64.8°F.
Year round Suitable to fairly suitable
(+ +) Not settled yet. Conflicting info. Numerical data with very wide range (up to 10 times!). Very strong strains dependent! Commercial viability?
M
C_CROP2 Bamboo (Bambuseae sp.) Bioethanol 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Across E. Asia from 50°N , through Australia, India, Africa S. America down to 47°S. In US, mainly FL., S.C. and Mid Atlantic.
Growing period of 4 months in spring. Viable to be harvested between 3 – 7 years window.
Suitable (+ +) 1450 species. Huge diversity in response to climate, pests, soils, growth, yields. The right specie is a key factor.
F
C_CROP3 Calendula (Calendula officinalis) and (Arvensis)
oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel All across the country (except very few places in the north), including FL. Mainly, temperate climates
Planting in the fall (Nov., Dec.) or early spring (Mar.).
Suitable (+ +) Big differences between 100 varieties.
E
C_CROP4 Candlenut (Aleurites moluccana) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Present only in FL. And only in Brevard and Miami‐Dade counties. Tropical‐subtropical regions
Harvest: Apr.‐May. Suitable (+) Little known yet. S.FL has the best chance.
E
C_CROP5 Chia (Salvia hispánica) Oilseed. 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Tropics and subtropics areas. Between: 20°55’N. ‐ 25°05’S. But also in Tucson, AZ. At 32°14’N. Mainly in Central Mexico and Guatemala. In Florida, Present only in Alachua county.
90‐150 days long season. Planted in early summer. Harvested in the fall. Or early spring to summer. Probably can be double cropped.
Fairly suitable ‐hardly suitable
( + ) Just in the beginning of research and data accumulation. Too early for any definitive conclusions.
E
C_CROP6 Coconut (Cocos nucifera) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Coastal sandy of the wet tropics. Miami‐Dade and Monroe counties, FL.
Planting: Mid‐summer. Harvesting: year round.
Suitable (+ +) Suitable along the FL. coastal line, south from Stuart on the west and Jupiter on the east.
F
C_CROP7 Coriander. (Coriadrum sativum) Oilseed. (Antibacterial, diuretic, increase LDL. Control diabetes type2
1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Subtropical zones. In USA: except 22 states, mainly in Midwest, SW., NE. and SE. Present in FL.
Sown in early spring, flowers in mid‐summer, harvested in late summer/early fall.
Suitable to fairly suitable
(+ +) Mainly Central FL. E
C_CROP8 Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) E. grandis. E. amplifolia.
Bioethanol. Oil (Biodiesel) Essential oils, natural insecticide, cough drops, antiseptic.
1. Bioenergy/Biofuel From tropical regions, through warm temperate desserts, to moist forests. In USA presents in FL., AZ., MS., TX., CA., HI.
Planting in early –late spring. Harvest can be year round, whenever convenient.
Suitable (+ +) In development are freeze tolerant varieties for the southern timber belt. N. FL. Can be a good candidate. E. grandis is present in south and central FL.
F
C_CROP9 Fever tree (Pinckneya bracteata) (pubens)
Medicine for fever(malaria)and rheumatism. Extracted from the bark.
2. Biopharma Central panhandle, GA., SC. Year round Suitable to fairly suitable
(+ +) Agronomic fit. Commercial
cultivation is in question?
Substitute to Peruvian bark. Threatened species by FL. State.
E
C_CROP10 Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus) Oilseed Bioethanol
1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Between 45°N ‐40°S And up to 3000’ elevations.
A spring crop. After be sowed, the crop is ready for harvest, for Fiber: 90 days. Oilseed:
Suitable (+ +) Grown in FL. For the last 4 years. 2500 Ac. in one farm. The commercial viability is not settled yet, but as an agronomic crop, it’s viable.
F
Table B‐ 1. Detailed Crop List – Current Crops
51 | P a g e
C_CROP11 Macadamia nuts (macadamia integrifolia/tetrafylla) Smooth shell/rough shell
Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Warm coastal areas w/heavy rains. Planting: Feb.‐Apr. Harvesting: Smooth: Jun.‐Mar. Rough: Aug.‐Oct.
Fairly suitable ‐hardly suitable
(+ ‐) Fairly to hardy suitable
There is some presence in C. and S. FL. UF is skeptical on commercial production.
E
C_CROP12 Mustard (Brassica juncea L. / Sinapis alba L.) Hybrids.
Oilseed. 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Temperate regions. 15 counties in Florida scattered from North to south.
Short season of 80‐95 days from emergence. Planting mid to late fall.
Suitable (+) Can be a good winter crop on fallow land in N. Florida.
F
C_CROP13 Oats (Avena sativa) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel 16 counties spread across N.C.S. FL. Mid‐upper central states. Temperate regions.
Spring planting and late summer harvesting, or fall planting and summer harvest (FL.)
Suitable (+) Probably more suitable to C. and more so to N. FL.
E
C_CROP14 Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Only in Miami‐Dade, FL. Tropical rain forest zones. Between 16° N. and S.
Transplanting in the beginning of summer.
Fairly suitable ‐hardly suitable
(‐) Hardly suitable
with limited space.
On the very margin of growing conditions. Might be very limited to extreme S.FL.
E
C_CROP15 Papaya (Carica papaya) Bioethanol Oil seed
1. Bioenergy/Biofuel South and central Florida. 90% of the production is in Miami‐Dade county. Tropical and warm subtropical regions, free from freezing temperatures.
Transplanting in Feb.‐Mar. and picking in Oct. ‐Nov.
Suitable ( + +) Mainly in south Florida F
C_CROP16 Pecan nuts (Carya illinoinensis) oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel N.C. mid America to S.E. states and TX. 7 northern counties in FL.
Planting: late Dec.‐Jan. Harvest: Mid Oct.
Suitable (+ +) Commercial production limited to N.FL.
F
C_CROP17 Pumpkin seed (Cucurbita pepo L. / Telfairia occidentalis Hook F.)
Oilseed. 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Mainly in temperate regions of the USA. All along the eastern seaboard west to mid‐America to the west coast and southwest.
Planting in Mid‐summer. Harvesting in early fall. (Changing season from traditional to commercial oilseed production will enable expansion.
Fairly suitable ‐hardly suitable
( + ) Very little commercial production in Florida. Might change by moving to a fall/winter/ and spring crop.
E
C_CROP18 Rapeseed (Canola) (Brassica nappus) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Temperate climate zone. Most of USA, except 9 states, mainly in Midwest, plus TX. And FL.
Fall planted winter crop. 160 days to harvest.
Suitable (+) Limited to N. Florida. F
C_CROP19 Soybean (Glycine max) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel All eastern half of USA. Temperate –tropical regions.
Planting: May‐Jun. Harvest: Aug.‐Sep.
Suitable (+) Feasibility and alternatives will
determine expansion.
Presence only in Palm Beach county, and N. FL.
M
C_CROP20 Sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum) Bioethanol 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Tropics to near subtropics. Similar to energy cane.
Suitable ( + + ) 450K acres in Florida. M
C_CROP21 Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel All across USA. 16 counties in FL. Spread in the N. C. S. Temperate regions and semi‐arid tropical and subtropics.
Planting: Oct. or Mar. Harvest: Feb. or Jul.
Suitable (+) Probably more suitable to C. and N. FL.
F
C_CROP22 Tung tree (Vernicia/Aleurites fordii) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel From Florida to Eastern Texas and CA. Planting seedlings in late winter. Harvest: Sep.‐Nov.,
Fairly suitable ‐hardly suitable
(+‐) Freezes, hurricanes, low demand, economical losses wiped out once a ubiquitous crop. Now has a Category II invasive plant.
F
Table B‐1. Detailed Crop List – Current Crops (Cont’d)
52 | P a g e
GIS ID Crop Product Category Regions Seasons Suitability Suitability score
Comments Supply Chain/ Marketability
FA_CROP23 Camelina (camelina sativa) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Mainly temperate climate zones, but not restricted.
A winter short winter crop in mild winter zones (FL.).
Suitable (+) N.FL. seems to be the region of choice.
Little is known on FL. Production, but continuing research is progressing.
E
FA_CROP24 Carinata (Brassica Carinata) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Subtropical Mediterranean climate zones and semi‐arid temperate zones (northern plains of US).
Mid – long season. Fall planting as a winter crop.
Suitable ( +) Currently, being tested in Quincy, N.FL. Winter crop for N. FL. Too early to tell.
F
FA_CROP25 Energy cane (Saccharum sponteneum) Bioethanol. 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Extended from typical tropical sugarcane regions (South: FL., AL., MS., LA., TX.) to all the gulf states including GA., AR. And SC.
Planting: Jan. –Mar. Harvesting: Oct. – Feb.
Suitable (+ +) Can be extended to Can be extended all the way to North FL.
F
FA_CROP26 Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Present in Broward and Brevard Counties, FL. Tropical‐subtropical.
Summer planting. Harvest is indeterminate.
Suitable (+ +) Looks promising in S.FL.
Lack of a complete knowledge. Ongoing basic research.
E
FA_CROP27 Moringa Tree (Moringa oleifera) Biodiesel 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Tropics and subtropics. All across S. America, mainly Honduras. South central Mexico. Hawaii and Haiti. Africa (mainly Niger). In Manatee and Miami‐ Dade counties in Florida.
Under favorable conditions (South‐Central FL.), flowering and fruiting occurs continuously year round. Under unfavorable conditions (cold): trees shed in winter and sprout in spring. Dry land: two peaks: Mar.‐Apr. and Jul.‐Sep.
Suitable ( + + ) Little known. Further research is needed. Strongly depends on breeding the most adaptable varieties.
E
FA_CROP28 Seashore Mallow(Kosteletzkya virginica). Bioethanol 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Along the Eastern seaboard of USA. Primarily, salty‐brackish marshes in the Mid‐Atlantic region. And along the gulf coast.
Sprouting in Apr.Flowering in Jul.Last seeds maturation in Oct.Shedding leaves in Nov.
Suitable ( + + ) Very little known. Ongoing research and breeding program is critical for further development to achieve commercial yields.Leading researcher: Dr. Jack Gallagher, University of Delaware.
E
FA_CROP29 Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) Bioethanol. 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel From FL. to NY. Along the E. coast, gulf states, TX., UT., OK. 3 counties in S. FL. From temperate to tropics and subtropics. North Carolina is the leading state.
Planting: Late spring/early summer. Harvesting: fall. 120 days season.
Suitable ( + + ) Mainly in S. FL. Need for more adaptable varieties to Florida conditions, like Industrial Sweet Potato.
F
FA_CROP30 Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Bioethanol. 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel All across USA. From temperate to subtropical to near tropical. Warm season plant. All across Florida.
Planting in early‐late spring. Harvesting in the fall.
Suitable ( + + ) Continuous research is developing dual purpose varieties for sap ethanol, as well as grain ethanol (including biomass). The right variety is the key to success.
F
FA_CROP31 Tropical sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Bioethanol 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Tropics and subtropics. 30°N ‐ 30°S. Most suitable in the SW USA.
5 months of growing season. Can be either summer or winter crop.
Suitable ( + ) Conflicting and very wide spread of yields results? Limited info. Too early to decide yet.
F
Table B‐ 2. Detailed Crop List ‐ Future Alternative Crops
53 | P a g e
GIS ID Crop Product Category Regions Seasons Suitability Suitability score
Comments Supply Chain/
Marketability
FO_CROP32 Castor beans (Ricinus communis) Oilseed 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Mid America, TN., KY., parts of OK, TX. and S.W. US if under irrigation.
Planted early May. Harvested early winter. Growing season: 140‐180 days.
fairly suitable ‐hardly suitable
(+ ‐) Fairly to hardy suitable. Agronomical, it’s a viable option.
Invasive plant (FLEPPC) category II. Sale of seeds banded in 2001 by FNGA. Presence in 25 counties mainly NC. And S. FL.
E
FO_CROP33 Croton (Croton tiglium L.) Oilseed (The oil might also be used for chemotherapy
2. Biopharma Tropical very dry to subtropical moist. Planted or direct seeded in the summer. Harvest is in Nov.‐Dec.
Suitable to fairly suitable
(+) Fairly suitable, and probably suitable, if more info. Would become available.
Limited information and often inconsistent and confused.
E
FO_CROP34 Hybrid Poplar Bioethanol 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Northern temperate regions. Hardiness zones 9‐4.
Planting in early springs. Harvesting all year round.
Suitable to fairly suitable
(+ +) As of now, limited only to Escambia County (NW. FL.)
F
FO_CROP35 Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.) Biodiesel. Bioethanol and methanol.
1. Bioenergy/Biofuel Throughout the great plains. From Canada south to NE OK., NE GA. And TX. And east from NC. To ME. Will grow in arid and semi‐arid zones.
Planting late fall. For fiber, the harvest is in the fall after the plant dries up.
fairly suitable ‐hardly suitable
(+) Presented in all states of the eastern 2/3 of USA, except FL.
E
FO_CROP36 Switch grass (Panicum virgatum) Bioethanol. 1. Bioenergy/Biofuel All across USA, except along the very west coast. Almost all across Florida, as well. The southern lowland selections are adaptable from 29°N and south.
Planting in Feb ‐Mar. for C. and S. FL. Mar. Apr. for N. FL. 4‐6 lbs. seeds/Ac. Harvest in the fall.
Suitable to fairly suitable
( + + ) Florida grows upland and lowland varieties. Developing more adaptable varieties to Florida is a key factor to economic viability.
F
Table B‐ 3. Detailed Crop List ‐ Future Other Crops
54 | P a g e
Crop Reason Unsuitable
Brazil Nut (Bertholletia excels) Location ‐ Tropical Zones, Grown exclusively in the wild
Daffodil (Narcissus sp.) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
Deadly Nightshade (Atropa belladonna) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
English Yew (Texus baccata) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
Chinese tallow tree (Sapium/Triadica sebiferum) Invasive (Cat. 1)
Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
Hazelnut/Fiber (Corylus Avellana) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) Climate ‐ Prefers long dry season and little rainy season
Lupine (Lupinus sp.) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) Climate ‐ Prefers dry conditions
Sesame (Sesamum indicum) Climate ‐ Prefers dry conditions
Cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.) Location ‐ Tropical Zones
Rauvolfia (Rauvolfia serpentina) Location ‐ Tropical Zones
Meadow sweet (Filipendula ulmaria L. maxim) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) Invasive (Cat. 1)
Miscanthus (Miscanthus giganteus) Location ‐ Temperate Zones
Table B‐ 4. Unsuitable Crops
55 | P a g e
GIS ID Crop Hardiness
Zone Soils pH
LAND_CAP Conditions
HYDRO Conditions
GIS Selection 1 (Ave Mgmt Cost) GIS Selection 2 (High Mgmt Cost)
C_CROP1 Algae (open pond) 2a to 11a+ N/A. Marginal soils can be used.
4.5 ‐ 8 ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
C_CROP2 Bamboo (Bambuseae sp.)
5a to 11a+ “Moso Bamboo” (most common) – pH: 4.5‐7. Well drained and rich for optimum growth.
4.5 ‐ 7 A, A/D ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
C_CROP3 Calendula ‘ (Calendula (Arvensis)
9b‐11b Clay – sand. Acidic.
4.5 ‐ 7 ("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("ZONE" <> '8b') and ("ZONE" <> '9a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("ZONE" <> '8b') and ("ZONE" <> '9a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
C_CROP4 Candlenut (Aleurites moluccana)
10a+ pH: 5‐8 5 ‐ 8 remove if s (deep root)
("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("ZONE" <> '8b') and ("ZONE" <> '9a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
C_CROP5 Chia (Salvia hispánica)
9a‐12 Very well aerated soil. Intolerant to waterlog.
5 ‐ 8 remove if s (deep root)
A, A/D ("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("ZONE" <> '8b') and ("pH" >= 5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("ZONE" <> '8b') and ("pH" >= 5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
C_CROP6 Coconut (Cocos nucifera)
10a+ Wide range of well drained soils from pH: 5‐8.
5 ‐ 8 remove if s (deep root)
A, A/D ("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
C_CROP7 Coriander (Coriadrum sativum)
8a+ Fertile loams. pH: 4.9 – 8.3
4.9 ‐ 8.3 ("pH" >= 4.9 and "pH" <= 8.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 4.9 and "pH" <= 8.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
C_CROP8 Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) E. grandis. E. amplifolia.
5a‐11a pH: 5 – 8.3 All the range from poor to salty to flooded to rich.
5 ‐ 8.3 remove if s (deep root)
("pH" >= 5 and "pH" <= 8.3) and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's') ("pH" >= 5 and "pH" <= 8.3) and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's')
C_CROP9 Fever tree (Pinckneya bracteata) (pubens)
9a‐9b Sandy‐sandy loam 6.1 ‐7.3 remove if s (deep root)
("ZONE" = '9a' or "ZONE" = '9b') and ("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
("ZONE" = '9a' or "ZONE" = '9b') and ("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
C_CROP10 Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus)
2a to 11a+ Loam to sandy loam Neutral to slight acidic.
6.1 ‐7.3 ("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
C_CROP11 Macadamia nuts (macadamia integrifolia/tetrafylla) Smooth shell/rough shell
9b+ Well drained loam‐sandy loam. pH:4.5‐8
4.5 ‐ 8 remove if s (deep root)
A, A/D ("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("ZONE" <> '8b') and ("ZONE" <> '9a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("ZONE" <> '8b') and ("ZONE" <> '9a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
Table B‐ 5. GIS Suitability Assumptions ‐ Current Crops
56 | P a g e
C_CROP12 Mustard (Brassica juncea L. / Sinapis alba L.) Hybrids.
8a+ Sandy loam soils. 6.1 ‐7.3 ("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
C_CROP13 Oats (Avena sativa)
2a to 9a Wide range of texture and pH.
4.5 ‐ 8 ("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' ) and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8)
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' ) and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8)
C_CROP14 Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis)
10a+ Well aerated deep soil. Will tolerate temporary floods. Mean pH:5.7
5.6 ‐ 6.5 remove if s (deep root)
("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 5.7 and "pH" <= 6.5) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 5.7 and "pH" <= 6.5) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
C_CROP15 Papaya (Carica papaya)
10a+ Well drained. Optimum pH:5.6‐6.7.
5.6 ‐ 6.7 remove if s (deep root)
A, A/D ("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 5.6 and "pH" <= 6.7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 5.6 and "pH" <= 6.7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
C_CROP16 Pecan nuts (Carya illinoinensis)
5a‐9b At least 36” of aerated, preferably, sandy loam pH: 5.5 6.5
5.5 ‐ 6.5 remove if s (deep root)
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' or "ZONE" = '9b' ) and ("pH" >= 5.5 and "pH" <= 6.5) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's')
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' or "ZONE" = '9b' ) and ("pH" >= 5.5 and "pH" <= 6.5) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's')
C_CROP17 Pumpkin seed (Cucurbita pepo L. / Telfairia occidentalis Hook F.)
2a to 11a+ Wide range of soils. 4.5 ‐ 8 ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8)
C_CROP18 Rapeseed (Canola) (Brassica nappus)
7a‐8b Well drained sandy loam. pH>5.7
Greater than 5.7
A, A/D ("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' ) and ("pH" >= 5.7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' ) and ("pH" >= 5.7) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
C_CROP19 Soybean (Glycine max)
2a to 12+ Wide range of texture and pH. Similar to corn.
4.5 ‐ 8 ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8)
C_CROP20 Sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum)
10a‐12 Like energy cane. Clay – sand.
4.5 – 7.8 ("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
C_CROP21 Sunflower (Helianthus annuus)
2a to 12+ Loam‐sand. Won’t stand heavy and poorly drained.
6.1 ‐7.3 A, A/D ("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
C_CROP22 Tung tree (Vernicia/Aleurites fordii)
2a – 9a pH:ave. 6.4. No less than 6. Deep, well drained
6.1 ‐ 7.3 remove if s (deep root)
A, A/D ("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' ) and ("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' ) and ("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.3) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
Table B‐5. GIS Suitability Assumptions ‐ Current Crops (cont’d)
57 | P a g e
GIS ID Crop Hardiness
Zone Soils pH
LAND_CAP Conditions
HYDRO Conditions
GIS Selection 1 GIS Selection 2
FA_CROP23 Camelina (camelina sativa)
2a to 11a+ Marginal soils, but with good drainage are Okay.
4.5 ‐ 8 A, A/D ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
FA_CROP24 Carinata (Brassica Carinata)
8a+ Wide range from clay to sandy soils. Better than mustard.
4.5 ‐ 8 ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
FA_CROP25 Energy cane (Saccharum sponteneum)
8a‐11a Clay – sand. 4.5 ‐ 8 ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
FA_CROP26 Jatropha (Jatropha curcas)
10a+ Very well aerated. Preference: alkaline
7.0 ‐ 9.0 ("pH" >= 7.0 and "pH" <= 9.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 7.0 and "pH" <= 9.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
FA_CROP27 Moringa Tree (Moringa oleifera)
8b‐12 Wide range from pH: 4.5 – 8. Does best, on well drained clay to clay loam soils, neutral to slightly acidic.
4.5 ‐ 8 remove if s (deep root)
A, A/D ("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("ZONE" <> '8a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' ) and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
FA_CROP28 Seashore Mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica).
8a‐11b Mainly coastal plains. Sandy soils, options are:1. Salinized farmland.2. Dry farmland w/brackish wells.3. Sandy coastal deserts.4. Aquatic ecosystems (marshes).
6 ‐ 8 ("pH" >= 6 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 6 and "pH" <= 8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
FA_CROP29 Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas)
12+ Well drained sandy loams to sandy. Optimum pH: 5.8‐6.0.
5.8‐ 6.0 A, A/D ("pH" >= 5.8 and "pH" <= 6.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
("pH" >= 5.8 and "pH" <= 6.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')and ("HYDRO" = 'A' or "HYDRO" = 'A/D')
FA_CROP30 Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)
2a to 11a+ Wide range of soils, though the best is well aerated deep soil. pH>6.0.
6.1 ‐ 8.0 remove if s (deep root)
("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 8.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
FA_CROP31 Tropical sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
8a to 12+ Tolerates salty and alkaline soils. Deep aerated and lightly acidic, clay to sand, is best. pH:4.0‐9.0
4.0 ‐ 9.0 remove if s (deep root)
("pH" >= 4.0 and "pH" <= 9.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
("pH" >= 4.0 and "pH" <= 9.0) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
Table B‐ 6. GIS Suitability Assumptions – Future Alternative Crops
58 | P a g e
GIS ID Crop Hardiness
Zone Soils pH
LAND_CAP Conditions
HYDRO Conditions
GIS Selection 1 GIS Selection 2
FO_CROP32 Castor beans (Ricinus communis)
8a‐11b Medium textured. Slightly acidic or Alkaline.
6.1 – 7.8 remove if s (deep root)
("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
("pH" >= 6.1 and "pH" <= 7.8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's' )
FO_CROP33 Croton (Croton tiglium L.)
10a+ pH:4.5‐7.5. Wide range of texture.
4.5 ‐ 7.5 ("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.5) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.5) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
FO_CROP34 Hybrid Poplar 4a‐9a Loamy, fertile and aerated soils with pH:5.5‐7.8.
5.5 ‐ 7.8 remove if s (deep root)
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' ) and ("pH" >= 5.5 and "pH" <= 7.8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's')
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' ) and ("pH" >= 5.5 and "pH" <= 7.8) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor') and ("LAND_CAP2" <> 's')
FO_CROP35 Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.)
8a‐9b annual 10a+ perennial
Sand to clay and even on calcareous rocky soils.
4.5 ‐ 7.8 ("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' or "ZONE" = '9b' or "ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.8)
("ZONE" = '8a' or "ZONE" = '8b' or "ZONE" = '9a' or "ZONE" = '9b' or "ZONE" = '10a' or "ZONE" = '10b' or "ZONE" = '11a') and ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.8)
FO_CROP36 Switch grass (Panicum virgatum)
2a to 11a+ Sand to clay with pH: 4.5‐7.6.
4.5 ‐ 7.6 ("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.6) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Marginal B') and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
("pH" >= 4.5 and "pH" <= 7.6) and ("LAND_RATE" <> 'Poor')
Table B‐ 7. GIS Suitability Assumptions – Future Other Crops
59 | P a g e
GIS ID Crop Name Bio‐Ag Category Crop Suitability Potential Acres
(Assumed Average Management Cost)
Potential Acres (Assumed Higher Management Cost)
C_CROP1 Algae (open pond) Biofuel Suitable to Fairly Suitable
7,303,491 7,802,262
C_CROP2 Bamboo (Bambuseae sp.) Biomass/Biofuell/ Biopharma/Biochem
Suitable 4,807,361 5,030,402
C_CROP3 Calendula (Calendula (Arvensis) Oilseed Suitable 4,586,030 4,891,474
C_CROP4 Candlenut (Aleurites moluccana) Oilseed Suitable 4,676,019 1,252,330
C_CROP5 Chia (Salvia hispánica) Bioenergy/Biofuel Fairly Suitable to Hardly Suitable
3,077,916 3,272,574
C_CROP6 Coconut (Cocos nucifera) Oilseed Suitable 883,885 938,129
C_CROP7 Coriander (Coriadrum sativum) Biopharma/ Biochem Suitable to Fairly Suitable
6,182,210 6,606,988
C_CROP8 Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) E. grandis. E. amplifolia.
Biomass / Biopharma Suitable 4,949,743 4,949,743
C_CROP9 Fever tree (Pinckneya bracteata) (pubens)
Biopharma/ Biochem Suitable to Fairly Suitable
740,919 908,519
C_CROP10 Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus) Bioenergy/Biofuel Suitable 1,634,474 1,874,353
C_CROP11 Macadamia nuts (macadamia integrifolia/tetrafylla) Smooth
shell/rough shell
Oilseed Fairly Suitable to Hardly Suitable
3,157,272 3,372,599
C_CROP12 Mustard (Brassica juncea L. / Sinapis alba L.) Hybrids.
Oilseed Suitable 1,634,474 1,874,353
C_CROP13 Oats (Avena sativa) oilseed Suitable 2,641,246 2,641,246
C_CROP14 Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis) Oilseed Fairly Suitable to Hardly Suitable
711,450 738,715
C_CROP15 Papaya (Carica papaya) Oilseed Suitable 618,114 639,454
C_CROP16 Pecan nuts (Carya illinoinensis) Oilseed Suitable 1,175,745 1,293,216
Table B‐ 8. Current Potential Acreage
60 | P a g e
C_CROP17 Pumpkin seed (Cucurbita pepo L. / Telfairia occidentalis Hook F.)
Oilseed Fairly Suitable to Hardly Suitable
8,277,245 8,277,245
GIS ID Crop Name Bio‐Ag Category Crop Suitability Potential Acres
(Assumed Average Management Cost)
Potential Acres (Assumed Higher Management Cost)
C_CROP19 Soybean (Glycine max) Oilseed Suitable 8,277,245 8,277,245
C_CROP20 Sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum)
Biomass/Biofuel/ Suitable 1,225,608 1,328,826
C_CROP21 Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) Oilseed Suitable 1,104,169 1,202,884
C_CROP22 Tung tree (Vernicia/Aleurites fordii) Oilseed Fairly Suitable to Hardly Suitable
23,556 28,768
GIS ID Crop Name Bio –Ag Category Crop Suitability Potential Acres
(Assumed Average Management Cost)
Potential Acres (Assumed Higher Management Cost)
FA_CROP23 Camelina (camelina sativa) Oilseed Suitable 7,129,543 5,152,155
FA_CROP24 Carinata (Brassica Carinata) Oilseed Suitable 7,303,491 7,802,262
FA_CROP25 Energy cane (Saccharum sponteneum)
Biomass/Biofuel/Biopharma/BioChem
Suitable 7,303,491 7,802,262
FA_CROP26 Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) Oilseed Suitable 6,863,725 540,581
FA_CROP27 Moringa Tree (Moringa oleifera) Biofuel Suitable 3,791,557 3,789,246
FA_CROP28 Seashore Mallow(Kosteletzkya virginica)
Biofuel Suitable 4,247,958 2,232,353
FA_CROP29 Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) Biofuel Suitable 1,774,924 384,913
FA_CROP30 Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Biofuel Suitable 2,160,655 2,089,954
FA_CROP31 Tropical sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
Biopharma/Biochem Suitable 5,807,511 6,317,566
Table B‐ 9. Future Alternative Acreage
Table B‐8 Current Potential Acreage(cont’d)
61 | P a g e
Table B‐ 10. Future Other Acreage
GIS ID Crop Name Bio –Ag Category Crop Suitability Potential Acres
(Assumed Average Management Cost)
Potential Acres (Assumed Higher Management Cost)
FO_CROP32 Castor beans (Ricinus communis) Oilseed Fairly Suitable to Hardly Suitable
1,727,385 2,030,364
FO_CROP33 Croton (Croton tiglium L.) Biopharma/Biochem Suitable to Fairly Suitable
1,209,146 1,309,249
FO_CROP34 Hybrid Poplar Biomass Suitable to Fairly Suitable
208,157 226,938
FO_CROP35 Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.) Biofuel Fairly Suitable to Hardly Suitable
8,170,895 8,170,895
FO_CROP36 Switch grass (Panicum virgatum) Biofuel Suitable to fairly suitable
7,224,213 7,711,982
62 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 1. Current Oilseed Processing Crops
63 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 2. Current Biomass Processing Crops
64 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 3. Current Biofuel Processing Crops
65 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 4. Current Biopharma Processing Crops
66 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 5. Citrus Abandoned Acreage
67 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 6. Future Crops with Advanced Research
68 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 7. Potential Future Oilseed Crops without Advanced Research
69 | P a g e
Figure B‐ 8. Potential Future Other Crops without Advanced Research
70 | P a g e
AppendixB3:CultivationGuidelinesforFutureAlternativeCrops
71 | P a g e
CAMELINA(CAMELINASATIVA)
ESTABLISHMENTIt can be established either using no‐till drills on firm seedbeds or using grain
drill or cultipacker seeder on prepared land. Accurate seeding depth is critical
since deep planting will result in poor stand and consequently poor production.
Seeds are small, about 400K – 500K seeds/lbs. The seeding rate is 3 – 10 lbs.
/Ac. at a depth of ¼ ‐ ½ inch.
WEEDCONTROLCurrently, there is no labeled broadleaf weed herbicide for Camelina; therefore it is very important to seed into
weed free seedbed. The growth of other Cruciferous family members weeds are always a concern ‐ primarily
wild radish (Raphanus raphinustrum). Based on lack of knowledge regarding the impact of residual herbicides, it
is recommended to follow the restrictions applied for canola. Nevertheless, the high competitiveness of
Camelina with annual weeds (early high density stands) may indicate the possibility to grow Camelina on no till
systems and without preemergence herbicide; both are significant to lower production costs.
INSECTSANDDISEASESGenerally, the damage caused by insects and diseases is currently below the threshold of any control measures.
The flea beetle (Phyllotreta cruciferae) was observed on Camelina. Downy mildew (Peronospora camelinae) was
observed on the upper part of the plant. However, Camelina shows good resistance to canola common diseases
like blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) and Alternaria brassicae. Sclerotinia stem rot, common to the mustard
family, should be watched carefully, thus it is recommended to plant Camelina no more than once every three
years in the same field. Camelina seeds infected with the Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus have been reported.
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSIn order to achieve high yields, it has been reported that the Nitrogen application rate should be between 60 –
90 lbs. /Ac. Based on planting Camelina in rotation with well fertilized crops, there may be no need to apply
Phosphorus or Potassium. The Camelina plant appears drought resistant, thus water requirements might be
fairly low.
HARVESTINGDirect harvesting can be done when pods turn yellow, using a grain combine. Reel speed should be controlled to
avoid shattering. Recommended moisture for seed storage is 8% to prevent spoilage.
SUMMARYAmong the unique agronomic traits of Camelina are: compatibility with no till systems, high weeds
competitiveness, low seeding rate, low susceptibility to insects and diseases, low water and fertilizers
requirements and highly manipulatable genome. These make it a great potential oilseed crop, good for biofuel
production at low cost, as well as environmentally friendly cultivation by lower, or not at all, application of
fertilizers, water, pesticides and soil conservation (no till).
72 | P a g e
CARINATA(BRASSICACARINATA)
INTRODUCTIONCurrently, the amount of agronomic knowledge and information is very limited. The crop is
in its experimental stage. There is ongoing research at the University of Florida North
Florida Research and Education Center in Quincy that started about 6 months ago, which is
supposed to provide some basic agronomic information.
ESTABLISHMENTSeeds are relatively large. Seeding rate is 9 – 13 lbs. /Ac.
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSThe optimum application of fertilizers depends on season and variety but it seems that 40 lbs. /Ac. of Nitrogen
and 61 lbs. /Ac. of Phosphorus have been found to be adequate. The preferred soils are moderately heavy with
pH ranging from 6.5 – 7.6. Under normal conditions, even growing marginal soils will result in vigorous growth.
Currently, the existing varieties grow well with rainfall ranging from 27” – 39” and temperatures ranging from
59°‐ 68°F. The strong tap root enables breeding for varieties which are drought tolerant.
WEEDCONTROL,INSECTSANDDISEASESBecause of the high content of glucosinolates within the Brassica species (like Camelina and Carinata), the plant
has very favorable agronomic traits such as weed and nematode suppressing qualities, resistance to insects like
aphides, flea beetle and soil borne pests, as well as resistance to diseases like blackleg, white rust (Albugo
candida), sclerotinia, Phillotreta cruciferae and alternaria black spot disease.
PHENOLOGICALSTAGESGermination: 5‐6 days after sowing.
Emergence to first flower: 156 days.
First flowering to maturity: 69 days.
Popular varieties include: White Figiri, Purple Figiri, Lushoo, Mbeya Green and Lambo. All found to be resistant to blackleg and white rust.
SUMMARYThe excellent agronomic traits include: high rusticity and adaptability, low pesticides input, weeds, insects and
diseases resistance, drought tolerance, low and delayed shattering rate, salt tolerance, simple mechanization,
high suitability as rotational cover crop, high yield and large seed size and manipulatable genome. These make it
a high potential oilseed crop for economical biofuel production which is low cost and environment friendly.
73 | P a g e
JATROPHA(JATROPHACURCAS)
ESTABLISHMENTFew options are available including: 1. Seeding – germination takes 7 – 10 days. Let develop
strong tap root more resistant to drought, but causes high variability. 2. Transplanting. 3.
Cuttings – decreases time for production by half (from 12 months to 6) compared to direct
seeding or transplanting, but no strong tap root. Cuttings can be taken from juvenile plants
and should be about 0.08” thick and 12” long. Cuttings can be taken year round, as well as
planted. To ensure good rooting it is recommended to dip the cuttings in 200mcg/liter IBA hormone. There are
two rates of plant populations; a denser one, about 1250 plants/Ac. for small plots and manual harvest, and a
wider one, with about 560 plants/ac for big plots and mechanical harvest.
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSThough Jatropha can be grown on poor marginal soils, and even salty and stony, it will perform best on fertilized
soil with annual application of Nitrogen (192lbs. /Ac.), Phosphorus (53lbs. /Ac.), Potassium (21lbs. /Ac.) and
secondary elements. Optimal pH ranges from 5.5 – 9.0. Jatropha can resist drought and survive two years
without water, though the best yields are obtained with rainfall ranging from 12” – 40” per year. The average
annual water consumptive use is 0.26 Gal/plant/day. The plant is also very susceptible to water logging
extending two days.
WEEDCONTROLWeed control can be done four times a year (depending on field conditions), either by cultivation means or the
use of the herbicides Oxyfluorfen or Pendimethalin.
INSECTSANDDISEASESThe following insects and diseases have been observed: Army worm, aphides, Papaya mealy bug, Citrus root
weevil (Pachnaeus sp.), collar rot (Phytophtora sp.).
PRUNINGThe yield increase in Florida is still in question. Normally, pruning is done once a year to encourage branching for
higher yields, and to control height to facilitate harvest. It is done during the winter months (Dec.‐Jan.). In
Florida, high yields have been achieved with pruning after two years to maintain height of about 6.6’
intercropping with cereals, vegetables, herbs and even trees like coffee and castor beans is possible.
HARVESTINGIt takes Jatropha 4‐5 years to reach peak productivity, though it produces harvestable fruits after 6 months of
cloning. The harvest can be done year round. Manual harvest is feasible in small plots and cheap labor but only
mature fruits are being harvested with no damage to flowers or developing fruits. Mechanical harvest can be
done on big wide plots with a combine similar to a cotton picker, but damaging young fruits and flowers is still
an issue that needs to be resolved.
SUMMARYJatropha is a non‐food bioenergy crop. It can affordably and sustainably provide oilseed for biodiesel, as well as
animal feed, biogas, organic fertilizer and even antibiotics, anticancer and skin drugs made from its cake
(byproduct after oil extraction) and roots and leaves.
74 | P a g e
ENERGY CANE (SACCHARUMSPONTANEUM)
ESTABLISHMENTStalks from the mother plant are cut to small pieces and dropped in double
rows into a 3” – 8” deep furrow and covered. This is normally done late
August through January. The typical row spacing is 5’. After 5 ‐6 years of
ratoon cycles, and due to disease, insects and weather damage, the yields
decline to unacceptable level, thus the field is being plowed under and
replanted if it is before January, or otherwise let fallow or used to grow
intercrop (normally rice) until the next August.
WEEDCONTROLEffective weed control is essential to achieve high yields of energy cane. The most critical time is before canopy
enclosure. Weeds can damage the crop by competing on water, nutrient and light as well as serving as host for
various insects and diseases, and interfering with the harvest. Weed control can be done in various ways: 1.
Crop rotation – treat fallow fields with harsh herbicides and/or by means of cultivation and/or by flooding
(growing rice in rotation) 2. Cultivation – Only after a height differential between the cane and weeds has been
achieved by pre‐emergence application, a mechanical cultivation becomes an effective weed control mean. 3.
Competition – a strong and vigorous emergence of full stand, and then keeping a full population thereafter, will
suppress weed contamination. 4. Herbicides – combination of pre‐emergence applications and mechanical
cultivation is critical to get a handle on weed control. Either directed or semi directed application of post‐
emergence herbicides done accurately while ensuring height differential and weeds no taller than 8” is a key to
control weeds throughout the growing cycle. From a long list of herbicides labeled to be used in energy cane, a
few examples are: Fallow application – Glyphosate, Pre‐emergence on muck soils – Atrazine and Prowl, Pre‐
emergence on sandy soils – Atrazine and Diuron, Post‐emergence on muck and sand – 2, 4‐D and Asulam. The
most common weeds are: nutsedge, pigweed, fall panicum and napiergrass.
INSECTSANDDISEASESMost energy cane is resistant to insects common on tropical/subtropical crops, but some still infest the plants.
The list includes: sugarcane borer, white grub, wireworms, yellow sugarcane aphid and lesser cornstalk borer.
Control is being achieved by means of cultivation (white grubs), biological control by wasps (sugarcane borer)
and chemical control (wireworms). Few diseases have affected the energy cane in Florida. The predominant
ones are the brown rust and, lately, the orange rust. The control is being done by means of cultivation (planting
susceptible varieties in less fertile soils) and the development of resistant varieties and chemical control
(Propiconazole).
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSAll the fertilization recommendations are based on adjustment to soil testing and expected nutrient removal by
estimated yields. The basic sugarcane formula for maximum yields on sandy soils (~15 tons DM/Ac.), and low
levels of NPK is 180‐75‐250 lbs. /Ac. The expected maximum yields of energy cane are ~24 tons DM/Ac. Thus,
the adjusted formula for energy cane under the same conditions, and without causing any damage to the crop
or contamination of ground water is 250‐100‐300 lbs. /Ac. Irrigation of energy cane is done by seepage irrigation
75 | P a g e
where the depth of the water table is being managed by open ditches along the fields. As the ditches are being
filled the water seeps in between the ditches and raises the water table. The opposite occurs when the ditches
are being emptied to enable drainage by lowering the water table. A typical water management unit is a 40 Ac.
rectangular with ditches spaced 660’ apart at a length of 2,640’. The depth of the water table is maintained at
23” – 30” with an average of 22” (including technical floods for weeds and insect control). At times the water
table dropped to 30” – 36” to enhance growth and sugar quality. The total water consumptive use for sugarcane
is about 47”. Because of higher and denser population in energy cane, the consumptive use of the crop might be
a bit higher.
HARVESTINGSugarcane is harvested late October to Mid‐April. Yields are higher as the weather turns cooler. The fields are
burned to get rid of field trash, then mechanically harvested and being loaded to truck or rail cars to be
transferred to the mill. Based on experimental plots, energy cane yields are expected to be at the range of 20 –
25 ton DM/Ac.
SUMMARYCommercial production of energy cane for bioethanol is in its infancy. The knowledge and information is still
fairly limited and based on experimental plots. Breeding and research continue to develop better varieties and
better practices to achieve one of the highest bioethanol yields of any crop at about 1500 gal/Ac.
S
WE
c
h
IP
f
3
p
F
c
r
f
FS
o
t
a
c
c
HL
p
u
m
t
a
SIt
f
g
t
SWEET PO
WEEDCONTEarly season w
combination
herbicides are
INSECTSANPests are usu
field at least f
3 months bef
potato weevi
Florida‐ diapr
control the sw
rot, Fusarium
fungicides.
FERTILIZATSweet potato
optimum targ
to eTuber var
assuming med
crop is being
consumptive
HARVESTINLike anything
planting. At t
using differen
manually tran
that picks up
a mill or some
SUMMARYt should be n
from the kno
growing seaso
these very hig
OTATO‐E
ESTPlan
65°F
mot
or 8
TROLweed contro
of rolling cu
e Aim, Comm
NDDISEASEally not a ma
for two years
fore transplan
l, wireworms
repes weevil
weet potato w
wilt and Roo
TIONANDWo is very susc
get, and no lo
rieties, which
dium levels o
considered
use of 1”/we
NGelse, harvest
hat time, 30%
nt types of ma
nsferred to b
the banded r
e storage or c
noted that th
own edible c
on must be lo
gh expected y
TUBERVA
TABLISHMEted in the sp
F. Propagatio
her root of th
rows transpl
l is very impo
ltivators earl
and and Devr
ESajor concern
, ensuring cle
nting. The mo
s, banded cuc
and Cuban M
weevil and Be
ot‐knot nema
WATERREQceptible to Al
ower than 5.5
at the mome
of P and K in t
as drought t
ek (about 20”
t time depend
% of the tube
achines. Typic
ig bins and lo
roots by a bel
curing if neces
he commercia
rop are expe
onger (150‐16
yields of 1800
ARIETIES
NTring well afte
n is done ma
he previous c
anters, in row
ortant until f
y in season
rinol. For pos
in sweet pota
ean transplan
ost serious pe
cumber beet
May beetle.
elay insecticid
atodes. The la
QUIREMENTuminum toxi
5. Some adju
ent, do not se
the soil. Furt
tolerant, thus
” for the grow
ds on the typ
ers should be
cally, vines ar
oaded on tru
t and loads it
ssary (like ed
al cultivation
ected. One b
60 days, as o
0 gal/Ac. of et
(IPOMOEA
er the last cha
ainly by sprou
crop, or vine
ws 3’ apart, 8”
all surface co
and herbicid
t‐transplante
ato crop and
ts free of Bla
ests are thos
le, pale‐stripe
Baythroid an
de to control w
abeled fungic
TSicity, thus it
stments need
eem to exist.
her adjustme
s water requ
wing period) i
e of the cultiv
e larger than
re cut off and
ucks. A more
t to a truck (li
ible sweet po
of eTubers i
big difference
opposed to 12
thanol.
ABATATA
ance of frost.
ut of about 1
cuttings. Pla
” between pl
overage is ac
des. The pred
ed application
can be redu
ck Rot, resist
se whose imm
ed and swee
nd Azatin are
wireworms. T
cides are: Chl
is very impo
d to be made
A suggested
ents should b
uirements are
is adequate to
var, but norm
3.5” (Numbe
a disc lifts th
expensive an
ike Irish pota
otatoes).
s in its infanc
e from the e
20 days for th
AS)
. Soil temper
10” long (call
nting is done
ants and 4” d
hieved. The b
dominant pre
ns, the choice
ced by not re
tant varieties
mature stages
et potato flea
the recomm
The predomin
lorothalonil,
rtant to ensu
e moving from
formula wou
be made base
e low. It is e
o achieve hig
mally, it is don
er 1). Harvest
he roots to th
nd slower wa
toes). Then it
cy ‐ thus cha
edible varieti
he edible typ
76
ature should
ed “slips”) ta
e mechanicall
deep.
best weed co
e‐transplante
e is Fusilade a
eplanting on
and turning t
s feed on roo
a beetles, and
mended insec
nant diseases
Mancozeb an
ure a pH of 6
m edible swe
uld be NPK of
ed on soil ana
estimated tha
gh yield.
ne after 120 d
t is done me
e surface and
ay is to use a
t likely goes s
anges and adj
es is that th
e), in order t
| P a g e
be above
aken from
y, using 4
ontrol is a
ed labeled
nd Poast.
the same
the soil 2‐
ots: sweet
d in south
cticides to
s are Black
nd copper
6.5, as an
eet potato
f 90‐90‐90
alysis. The
at a peak
days from
chanically
d then it is
a machine
straight to
justments
he eTuber
to achieve
77 | P a g e
SWEET SORGHUM(SORGHUM BICOLOR)
ESTABLISHMENTPropagation is done by seeds, early in the spring when soil temperature is above 65°F.
Stands are around 80,000 plants/Ac. with seeding at 30” – 40” between the rows and 4”
– 6” between plants. The growing season is around 120 days, depending on varieties.
Currently, there are no varieties that have been bred specifically for Florida conditions.
WEEDCONTROLThe fact that sorghum seedlings grow slowly for the first few weeks, combined with limited availability of
herbicides and the use of low doses on the Florida coarse soils, makes weed control for sorghum a challenge.
Stand, fertility, pH and hybrids selection are essential to achieve economical weed control. Dual and Parallel are
recommended as pre‐emergence herbicides and Atrazine, 2, 4‐D, Basagran and Linuron for post‐emergence
application, either directed or broadcast.
INSECTSANDDISEASESInsects do not normally cause significant damage. The major diseases are: Leaf anthracnose, red stalk rot and
maize dwarf mosaic virus. Usually, crop rotation and resistant varieties are the means for control.
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSLoam to sandy loam soils is considered best for sweet sorghum. Lime should be added for pH lower than 6.0.
Nitrogen has the most impact on yields and the recommended rate is between 80 – 120 lbs. /Ac. depending on soil type and in two split applications. The recommendation for Phosphorus is 40 lbs. /Ac. and 100 lbs. /Ac. of Potassium, assuming medium existing levels in the soil. Adjustment should be based on soil analysis.
Sweet sorghum is considered a drought tolerant crop; its water requirements are relatively low.
The water consumptive use is found to be between only 14” to 18”.
HARVESTINGIn order to increase the sugar content, seed heads must be beheaded at the late milk stage and be cut below the
top node. The harvest is done by modified silage choppers and if the leaves need to be removed before
processing, stripping should be done while the stalks are still standing.
SUMMARYCompared to other energy crops, sweet sorghum uses very efficient (low) inputs of water and nutrients, and
little pesticide, thus it is considered very sustainable and environment friendly. If the potential of double
cropping can be materialized through breeding and cultural practices, the yields can surpass 1000 Gal/Ac. of
Ethanol.
78 | P a g e
TROPICALSUGARBEET(BETAVULGARIS)
ESTABLISHMENTSeedbeds need to be free of clods and smooth. Seeding rate is about 50,000 seeds/Ac. at a depth
of 1”, ending with a stand of 42,000 plants/Ac. Spacing should be 20” between rows and 6.5”
between plants. The ideal season depends on the region’s climate and crop rotation. The
optimum sowing window would be warm temperatures, well‐drained soil, followed by mild
rainfall.
WEEDCONTROLWeed control is critical from sowing up to 1 – 2 months when the canopy closes. It can be done either
mechanically or by using herbicides. Glyphosate and Paraquat can be sprayed as pre‐emergence, and Cycloate
and EPTC as soil incorporated. The following herbicides are labeled (sugar beet) to be applied as post‐
emergence: Treflan, Stinger, Betanex and Poast.
INSECTSANDDISEASESSeeds can be coated with systemic pesticides that provide protection from insects and fungi. The most
predominant insects are leaf eating caterpillars late in the season and should be treated with insecticides. The
predominant diseases are powdery mildew and cercospora. An appropriate fungicide is advised. The use of
Mancozeb, Bayleton and copper fungicides is fairly common.
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSAll the seasonal amount of fertilizers should be applied as pre‐plant at the default formula of 120 ‐75‐75 Lbs.
/Ac. of NPK. Adjustment should be made based on soil analysis.
Preferable soil pH is 4 – 9. The crop is better tolerant to saline soils than sugar cane.
A technical irrigation should be applied at sowing if the soil temperature is higher than 95°F. Light irrigations
should be continued to ensure moist soil until emergence is completed. During the growing season the irrigation
interval should be every 10 – 15 days until one week before harvest, when it should be stopped. The total water
consumptive use is calculated at 24”. The strong and deep tap root can withdraw water (and nutrients) from
over 3’ deep. Considerable yields can be obtained even from a top soil of only 1’.
HARVESTINGAlthough Tropical Sugar Beet (TSB) can grow almost indefinitely, harvest is done between 4 – 6 months after
sowing, depending on site conditions of water, soil, climate, cultural practices and varieties. Harvest can be done
either by hand or mechanically. Two pieces of machinery are required for mechanical harvest: 1. Defoliator to
remove the leaves before the harvest. 2. A lifter loader harvester to pick up the roots from the ground and load
it on trucks.
SUMMARYThe key to success is the choice of the right genetics and cultural practices. The wide variability of achievable
yields, due to different growing conditions and genetics, suggests an average yield of 600 Gal/Ac. of ethanol, yet
the potential seems to reach as much as double that, at around 1200 Gal/Ac.
79 | P a g e
MORINGATREE(MORINGAOLEIFERA)
ESTABLISHMENTPlowing is required when planted with close spacing. For low planting densities,
pits (30 to 50cm deep, 20 to 40 cm wide) can be dug and refilled with soil.
Moringa can be propagated from seed or cuttings. Direct seeding is possible
because of its high germination rate; if insects and pests are a concern this plant
can be started in seedbeds or containers (which is more time consuming). If
propagated by cuttings, the cuttings should be 1 m in length and have a diameter of at least 4cm. The tree can
be planted in a wide variety of configurations. For intensive leaf production, spacing may be 15x15cm or
20x10cm along rows with conveniently‐spaced alleys (e.g., 4m); alternatively, space the seeding lines 45cm and
sow seeds every 5cm. Semi‐intensive spaces the plant typical 50cm to 1m apart, and low‐intensity plantings are
usually spaced between 1 and 2 meters.
WEEDCONTROLWeed control is more difficult for high‐density plantings. Traditional options for weed control include inter‐
cropping (e.g., sunflower) and manual removal with a hoe. In high‐density production early weed control is
critical and after that, weed control does not pose any serious threat to production.
INSECTSANDDISEASESIn most areas, the Moringa Tree is not affected by any serious diseases. In India, several insect pests (bark‐
eating, hairy, and green leaf caterpillars), budworms, aphids, stem borers, fruity flies, and termites have been
observed. The Moringa Tree is host to Leveillula taurica, a powdery mildew that is known to cause damage to
papaya crops in south India.
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSIn high‐density production, it is critical to start with fertile soil. If high output is to be maintained, large amounts
of fertilizer will be needed every year. However, this tree can be grown without fertilization or irrigation, albeit
with sub‐optimal yields.
HARVESTINGMoringa is typically harvested manually with knives, sickles, and other hand instruments. From seeding, the
leaves can be harvested from the young trees in 60 days and seven times a year thereafter. Under optimal high‐
production situations, the leaves can be harvested every two weeks.
SUMMARYThe Moringa Tree has a wide variety of applications in addition to Bio‐Ag, and can grow in a wide variety of soils
and regions, and a wide variety of management styles. The most suitable locations would be in South and parts
of Central Florida, where the possibility of a freeze is low or nonexistent. Common names for this tree include
the Drumstick Tree, Horseradish Tree, and the Ben Oil Tree.
80 | P a g e
SEASHORE MALLOW(KOSTELETZKYAVIRGINIC)
ESTABLISHMENTSeashore Mallow can be propagated by seed or softwood cuttings. Seeds germinate
easily especially in warm (70° F) soils. Mature seeds can be collected when the capsule
turns brown; they are smooth and dark brown in color. The plant can grow up to 6 feet
tall. The recommended plant spacing is 18 to 24 inches. In general, this plant will grow
taller under freshwater irrigation than with salt water irrigation. In dry land areas, seashore mallow can be
established and cultivated like soybeans. The life span for each plant is typically 5 years, although some studies
indicate that up to a 10‐year life span is possible for small plots.
WEEDCONTROLWeed control is generally an issue where freshwater irrigation is used. In these situations, Seashore Mallow
production is similar to soybean production and the weeds must be carefully managed for optimal yields. Under
saltwater irrigation, weeds are typically killed or will be outcompeted by the seashore mallow.
INSECTSANDDISEASESSeashore Mallow has little to no known issues with pests and diseases.
FERTILIZATIONANDWATERREQUIREMENTSLittle information is available regarding the nutrient requirements for this plant, or its yield response to fertilizer
application. The plant strongly prefers moist soil conditions, and can be irrigated with either fresh water or
saline water. The plant can have roots up to 3/8” in diameter and burrow down more than 30 inches deep to
extract soil moisture, which gives mature plants a competitive advantage over annuals and weeds.
HARVESTINGSeashore Mallow can be harvested using equipment used for soybeans or manually. The plant produces blooms
generally in the mid‐Spring to Mid‐Fall.
SUMMARYSeashore Mallow is being researched as a potential solution for agricultural lands that have been abandoned
because of salinity problems. It is being explored as a potential feedstock for the production of biodiesel. The
flowers are similar to hibiscus, but are distinguished by their flat ring of fruit segments. This plant is used as an
ornamental and is a source of nectar and will attract hummingbirds and butterflies.
AppendixC1:FloridaBio‐AgLaboratoriesandTestFacilities
LaboratoriesandTestFacilities‐GeneralFindingsIn general, public facilities in Florida have adequate physical space to advance a statewide initiative to
commercialize Bio‐Agriculture. The physical space includes both acres available to expand crop and
cultivar testing and the supporting laboratories, equipment storage and office space to accommodate
researchers, technical and administrative staff. While land area and laboratory space (at the Research
and Education Centers, or RECs, in particular) currently may not be fully utilized or at capacity, facility
directors emphasize that the demands for space evolve as Bio‐Agriculture competes with other
research. Consequently, the Bio‐Ag field of inquiry would need to be prioritized through program
development and budgeting. Also, state and federal budget impacts over the past several years have
resulted in net losses in senior research staff. Ultimately, the physical plant directed at Bio‐Ag needs to
be matched with appropriate staff to conduct directed research and begin scaling results for commercial
application.
Standout opportunities exist that represent the broad spectrum of Bio‐Ag research underway around
the state, including:
Bioplastics at Stan Mayfield Refinery, made from biomass sugars and used in applications
ranging from packaging to textiles, with a value six times that of ethanol by weight;
New tissue culture techniques, and training methods for students to acquire skills needed for
biopharma production, at IFAS Mid‐Florida REC;
RNA Interference techniques to attack genes without chemicals, which could be applied to the
citrus psyllid responsible for greening, at the USDA Center for Medical, Agricultural and
Veterinary Entomology;
Harvesting and monetizing the grape skin byproducts of viticulture that are currently 95%
composted, and can be converted to valuable extracts, at FAMU;
Biopharma applications of existing Florida crops at the Homestead REC, with apprentice‐type
facilities for emerging Bio‐Ag entrepreneurs;
Accelerating genetic improvement in plants using International Space Station Space technology
opportunities; and
High‐value biochemical applications for citrus peels used in fracking, at the U.S. Horticultural
Research Laboratory in Ft. Pierce.
The section also provides selected recommendations for economic development initiatives. Not every
location reviewed can readily benefit from or contribute to economic development, although
investment in particular facilities will generally have some tangible economic impact on host
communities, whether through purchase of supplies or via hiring of skilled staff. However, specific
initiatives, including public private partnerships, are highlighted as examples that may have counterparts
elsewhere in Florida’s network of Bio‐Ag facilities.
Overall, Florida has multiple different projects at each stage of the commercialization pathway.
Generally speaking, university research and state facilities tend to concentrate on early steps, identifying
and refining new opportunities. Once proof of concept has been reached, researchers tend to relinquish
control to
largely co
spectrum
research.
The vario
conceptua
from basi
site visits,
the inputs
Com
Lab S
Land
Grow
O&M
Adm
ResePost‐
Netw
MarkExpe
3rd P
Mark(Abso
LEGE
Well E
Initial
Early
Resea
o a private p
oncentrated i
, with some
us sub‐marke
al phase and
ic research ca
, the followin
s for commer
mercial Facto
Space
wth Chambers
M Capacity
in Support Fa
arch Expertis‐Docs)
working Resou
keting and Prortise
Party Financin
ket Readinessorption of Pro
ND
Established
Commercializ
Development
arch, Conceptu
artner who c
n the mature
e including s
ets of Bio‐Ag
full commer
apacity to ne
ng table summ
rcialization.
Tab
or
s
acilities
se (Faculty;
urces
ofessional
ng
s Potential oduct)
zation
ual
can bring the
e areas of th
trong private
g in Florida ar
cialization. Bi
etworking and
marizes the c
ble 7: Sub‐Mar
Bio‐Ene
e new produc
he pathway.
e sector col
re at distinct
io‐Ag feature
d marketing
urrent status
rket Stage of D
Sub‐mark
ergy Ch
ct to market.
Federal facili
laboration a
t levels of ma
es numerous
capacity. Bas
s of Florida’s
Development
ket Stage of
Bio‐emicals
B
. As such, th
ities vary the
nd others fo
aturation, var
components
sed on detail
Bio‐Ag marke
Developmen
Bio‐Pharma
82 | P
e private sec
eir position o
ocused strict
rying betwee
in its supply
led interview
ets with respe
nt
Bio‐Control
a g e
ctor is
on the
tly on
en the
chain
ws and
ect to
l
83 | P a g e
Bioenergy is generally the furthest along towards commercialization. While extensive land resources are
available to support the sub‐market, but for a few enterprises targeting biomass (as opposed to ethanol
or other fuels), land specifically dedicated to bio‐energy is not yet programmed towards commercialized
yields. The biopharma sub‐market in Florida is the least well‐developed of the four with most of the
inputs needed for commercialization still in the research or conceptual state.
In general, barriers to advancing Bio‐Ag derive from recession‐related staffing cuts, which slowed or in
some cases halted promising research. Additional funding, explored herein, will move RECs toward full
utilization; CRADAs9 may expand this potential further.
InvestinginFloridaFlorida has demonstrated strong Bio‐Ag potential; private facilities sit in the pre‐launch phase, and
selected research projects both at the state level and the federal level occupy a healthy position in the
early development phase of commercialization.
In many ways, the primary key to achieving the role of Bio‐Ag leader for Florida appears to be people.
Many researchers indicated that they were unable to get the most out of their specialized equipment
because they lacked the funds to attract skilled personnel to operate them. In fact, the researchers
contacted indicated that 63% on average of their additional biocontrol funding would go towards hiring
or retaining personnel. Bioenergy researchers were similar, expressing that 57% on average of any
additional funding would go towards hiring or retaining skilled employees. Florida’s overall Bio‐Ag
investment strategy should target the most promising innovations ‐ which are primarily represented by
the high‐skilled workforce the state has already targeted.
StateandLocalFacilitiesState and local facilities significant to Bio‐Ag investment endeavors include state universities such as
University of Florida (UF), Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), and University of
South Florida (USF) as well as county‐ and city‐owned waste‐to‐energy facilities (which often generate
energy from biomass such as yard waste), research parks, and laboratories. The University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF IFAS) has a large, widely‐distributed presence throughout
Florida in agricultural research and extension. Included is the UF IFAS collection of Research and
Education Centers (RECs), each of which has one or more primary themes guiding research priorities, as
well as agricultural land which can support crop growth. As each one has its own particular funding
needs, equipment availability, and research potential, they are explored individually.
State and local facilities are ordered in the following manner: universities are covered first, starting with
UF IFAS main campus in Gainesville, then each of its RECs in alphabetical order, and then other Florida
universities. The remaining state and local facilities, including a Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (DACS) facility and a research park, are presented in alphabetical order. See later
9 CRADA ‐ A Corporate Research and Development Agreement is a relationship program for collaboration between academic or government researchers and one or more private companies. When universities or research centers work within a CRADA, they may provide funding, equipment and lab space, or personnel, including scientists that may enter a private payroll. In general, the goal of a CRADA is to develop new technology. Mutual benefits may include a patent awarded to the university or research center, while the private partner could obtain an exclusive license.
84 | P a g e
sections for a comprehensive table summarizing the physical capacity and other characteristics of the
state and local facilities.
Florida’s state and local facilities are engaged in several particularly promising Bio‐Ag projects.
Bioenergy crops such as Carinata and Jatropha are being grown and researched at IFAS RECs; they
command pre‐launch and early development labels, respectively. Biocontrol candidates such as the
DACS insectary’s Tamarixia radiata occupy the pre‐launch step from a permitting and efficacy
perspective, but will require focused effort to attract private involvement and expand operations. With
plenty of biopharma crops and biochemical products comfortably nestled in the early development
phase, state and local facilities host commercialization activities along a strong upward current. The
capacities and utilization status of each state and local facility are explored below.
UFIFASMainCampusatGainesvilleIFAS has a central presence on the UF main campus, and 12 RECs throughout the state. The RECs each
represent a unique set of opportunities to invest further in Bio‐Ag research and to extend Bio‐Ag
management practices to regional agricultural producers.
The main campus is UF’s central hub, which has relations with all of the RECs and other university‐
affiliated facilities. It has led research in all sub‐markets of Bio‐Ag. Two examples include UF incubator
research leading to new applications of bacteria to control nematodes and research on the use of
viruses for gene transport. While nematodes are destructive pests in most instances in Florida (resulting
in an estimated 12% crop loss), some species can be used to kill crop pests, particularly larva such as
cutworms. The USDA lab in Gainesville has partnered with UF to focus on the beneficial aspects of
nematodes.
Lignin and carbohydrate fractions have been recovered by UF researchers and blended with plastics to
create novel composites, the performance of which is currently being evaluated. UF‐based research is
examining the use of lignin to create carbon nanotubes, which are being used for various emerging
applications in electronics, optics, and materials science.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe UF IFAS main campus presence is consistently growth‐oriented. Strategies to increase utilization of
its enormous potential are outlined in the UF/IFAS Research Roadmap Update (July 2013). A glimpse at
the critical hires listed in the Roadmap reveals that bioenergy, biocontrol, and other facets of Bio‐Ag are
likely to increase in importance in the future. Critical hires outlined in the Roadmap that are particularly
relevant to Bio‐Ag (and their corresponding academic departments on campus) include:
Extension and non‐formal education in domestic and international settings (Agricultural
Education and Communication)
Bioenergy crop breeding (Agronomy)
Nematode molecular physiology/genomics (Entomology and Nematology)
Insect/nematode symbiosis (Entomology and Nematology)
Bioinformatics (Food Science and Human Nutrition, Microbiology and Cell Science, Plant
Pathology)
85 | P a g e
While some of these critical hires are very clearly fundamentally important to Bio‐Ag, others, such as
bioinformatics, are applicable to many types of research and essential to Bio‐Ag research. Bioinformatics
has been mentioned as a badly needed skill set by multiple researchers interviewed for this study. The
importance of new hires is consistent with the emerging theme that finding the right people should be a
central priority in the effort to strengthen Florida’s position in Bio‐Ag. In addition to critical hires, the
IFAS Roadmap also includes “Core Programs of the Future,” which also lists Bio‐Ag topics. Example
programs and their departments include:
Bioenergy and invasive plants (Agronomy)
Augmentative biological control (Entomology and Nematology)
UFIFASCitrusRECThe Citrus REC in Lake Alfred directs research for various aspects of citrus, such as disease and drought,
water, and breeding. The direct involvement in Bio‐Ag at this facility, according to Center Director Dr.
Jackie Burns, is the study of biocontrol and biorational practices, including investigation of pheromones
as repellents, finding natural chemicals to use in the fight against diseases and insects, and developing
insect populations with disease immunity to replace existing native populations.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationTo fully pursue these biological control projects additional funding, tied to particular citrus biocontrol
research activities, would be required. Half of these funds would go toward personnel, while the other
half would be needed for equipment acquisition and maintenance.
UFIFASEvergladesRECThe Everglades REC (EREC) has expertise in soil and water, sugarcane, and energy cane. Researchers at
this facility collaborate with the USDA and private
companies involved in the sugarcane industry, including
BP, which has funded research projects at the site.
Researchers at EREC recognize that commercialization of
energy cane faces high risks in the near term; the
processing aspect is currently especially costly, and the
necessary enzymes in particular are prohibitively
expensive.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationResearch needs include increased focus on management
practices in the field. EREC’s funding, according to onsite researchers, is all directed toward production
of new varieties, with none allocated for management practices. Researchers at the Everglades REC note
that management practices play an important role in implementation and commercialization, and are
currently undervalued as a research topic. This thought has been echoed by several other RECs, and is a
consideration in encouraging Bio‐Ag investment through university activities.
Figure 14. Energy Cane at the Everglades REC
86 | P a g e
UFIFASFortLauderdaleRECThe Fort Lauderdale REC does not do any Bio‐Agriculture research, focusing instead on ornamentals,
landscape research, wildlife conservation, and other related topics.
UFIFASGulfCoastREC(Wimauma/PlantCity)The Plant City Gulf Coast REC (GCREC) facility has greenhouses and ornamentals, and is focused on
geomatics (spatial analysis and mapping of terrestrial and aquatic natural resources) and teaching; it
appears not to be as suitable for Bio‐Ag investment as the Wimauma facility. On the other hand, the
facility in Wimauma conducts pest and disease research, and could potentially accommodate Bio‐Ag
investment. The Wimauma facility conducts crop pathogen testing as well as various pest research
initiatives. This REC currently has no bioenergy‐related research, though its researchers have attempted
to get involved in the past. About a decade ago, this REC put a proposal together to be the source of
sorghum for a planned bioenergy plant in the Tampa area. However, the proposal never received
funding and the plant was not built.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationSome research has been done in Wimauma on the topic of biocontrol of predator mites that attack
pests of strawberries. Two entomologists reside at the Gulf Coast REC, and one in particular is well‐
suited for further biocontrol research, but currently has no funding to pursue such projects. The facility
has physical capacity, such as rearing rooms, to accommodate these efforts. However, gaps exist; for
example, the rearing rooms currently lack temperature controls that are crucial for observing results
from biocontrol research.
A key research need is biocontrol efficacy regarding pests that affect vegetables in particular. This topic
has been explored relatively little in the realm of biocontrol, and the GCREC could fill this need. The
facility currently needs a funded postdoc to research biocontrol of pests affecting peppers and
strawberries. Like many other facilities throughout Florida, the GCREC’s biggest limitation is its supply of
personnel. For a strong foundation in biocontrol overall, the GCREC would need a dedicated research
associate.
Among the roughly 475 acres at the Wimauma GCREC, there is abundant open space; consequently,
researchers at this site believe that, despite the lack of current bioenergy research, there is enough land
to support it. The free space and the grain cover crops currently in place would make a transition to
biofuel crops physically feasible.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesOne innovation developed at Wimauma is software designed to reduce pesticide spraying; the software
uses climate data to suggest pesticide quantities and times at which to spray. This tool, as it currently
stands, is for a fungicide that does not pose risk to beneficials. However, it represents the possibility of
software and other management tools that could spur the private sector to sell products that improve
the efficiency of biocontrol agents between sprays as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
87 | P a g e
portfolio. While commercial parties may not be interested in selling natural enemies themselves, they
can provide value‐added services or capital following collaboration with researchers.
A more direct example of private sector opportunity is the blowers, used to distribute mites that have
been developed by Koppert, the Dutch biocontrol company. The GCREC submitted a grant proposal to
undertake an evaluation of these blowers, which are currently given away for free to growers.
Commercial product evaluation could enhance their commercial viability and profitability. Through
similar partnerships, GCREC could play a valuable part in the overall commercialization of biocontrol
products. Following evaluation, university specialists could endow products with certification or seals of
approval to standardize quality control, which has been cited as a key downfall of many commercial
biocontrol attempts.
UFIFASIndianRiverRECThe Indian River REC conducts research on bioenergy and biocontrol, as well as water and crop quality.
The Center has two entomologists; one specializes in biocontrol of insects, while the other specializes in
weeds, such as Brazilian pepper. Biocontrol efforts are currently supported in part by a grant that has
been in effect for the last ten years. Bioenergy grants support an agricultural engineer’s efforts
researching energy crops, including sugar beets and sweet potatoes.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationLong‐term grants are desirable and more effective than short‐term ones, and adjusting the timeline
appropriately could help the Indian River REC reach full utilization. They give researchers the confidence
necessary to invest in ambitious research projects that have the best return on investment.
UFIFASMid‐FloridaRECOverall, funding for the Mid‐Florida REC has declined about 50% over the past five years. Pest and
disease biocontrol have been cut relative to invasive species research. Currently, the center is working
with two grants targeted at biocontrol of invasive white flies. It is part of a larger effort on integrated
pest management (IPM) directed at whiteflies and various ornamental pests.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationProtected agriculture– a method involving environmental modification such as protective structures and
enclosures to bolster crop survival ‐ is a focus of this REC;
as protected agriculture has been mentioned as one of the
more fertile avenues for commercial biocontrol, this facility
has special potential. Researchers at the Mid‐Florida REC
facility believe targeted funding should be concentrated on
fungal research. Funding would go toward additional
necessary work such as cross protection and inoculating
the crops affected by disease.
This REC has untapped biocontrol potential regarding the
issue of the Silverleaf Whitefly, a pest that is destructive
Figure 15. Greenhouse at the Mid‐Florida REC; Vacant Due to Lack of Funds
88 | P a g e
throughout the world (estimated at a cost of $5 million worldwide), and is limiting tomato production in
Florida. The Mid‐Florida REC has found the parasite that can kill the Silverleaf Whitefly, establishing it as
a strong potential biocontrol agent. Researchers note that greenhouses are needed to produce the
plants that can harbor this natural enemy. Greenhouses need to be replaced or refurbished, according
to researchers, and there is unutilized vacancy at this site.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesDr. Dennis Gray, a geneticist at the REC, develops new tissue culture techniques and has led research in
the field of precision breeding. Precision breeding is an alternative to transgenics; distinct from genetic
modification, this technique involves the use of genetic markers to track gene inheritance when closely
related plants (often within the same species) are crossed. Dr. Gray and others are developing genetic
modification of grapes, using other grape genes to endow them with disease resistance. The Mid‐Florida
REC teaches entry‐level skills in fields related to tissue culture, and helps connect students with
employers; precision breeding research could become a priority focus of the tissue culture teaching
program to provide a skilled labor supply for producers of bio‐pharma and other innovative Bio‐Ag
products. This teaching and outreach can be especially effective in generating direct economic impact
from the pioneering research at this REC, creating good jobs and increasing the productivity of growers.
The Mid‐Florida REC benefits from frequent donations from growers, who recognize that innovations
developed at the REC directly helps them in return. Consequently, it is apparent that additional efforts
to extend new technologies could result in additional funding and capital donations from the private
sector. The facility has already demonstrated its ability to facilitate new commercial projects; AgriStarts
is developing a small business for banker plants, which are plants grown specifically to harbor natural
enemies in a greenhouse.
UFIFASNorthFloridaREC(Quincy/Marianna)The two sites – Quincy and Marianna ‐ are usually bundled together in terms of strategic goals. With
involvement in multiple aspects of bioenergy and biocontrol, the North Florida REC in Quincy is the self‐
proclaimed most diverse REC in Florida and has especially significant Bio‐Ag potential. The Marianna REC
is smaller than the facility in Quincy, focusing on agronomic and beef cattle, genetics and breeding, and
beef cattle production.
The Quincy site has also proven its value as an
information‐sharing and networking center, having hosted
DACS, researchers from North Dakota, and others in
Quincy at a conference entirely devoted to Carinata.
Crucially, researchers at this REC are examining planting
rates and herbicide rates to reveal how Carinata can be
integrated with cotton, making it viable on a larger scale
as a winter cover crop. The work at this REC is also helping
compare viability of bioenergy crops; for example,
research on eucalyptus has found that eucalyptus wood
Figure 16. Young Carinata at The North Florida REC (Quincy)
89 | P a g e
ethanol requires far too much processing when compared to drop‐in fuels. The REC has a pyrolysis
chamber for burning waste such as agricultural plastics to produce biochar.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationOffice space at the Quincy office is 10% to 15% vacant. The North Florida REC has funding needs, and
senior faculty feel that funding arrangements could benefit from higher flexibility in the future.
Researchers at the REC have been unable to accept some grants due to policy constraints.
To fully optimize bioenergy research, the
facility could use additional funding. 65‐70%
of this bioenergy funding would go toward
employees (faculty, grad students and staff),
with 10% used for equipment and 25% in
expenses, including travel. This REC also has
very specific IPM needs. IPM is an applied
approach to responsible pest management,
using minimal pesticides, and is similar to
biocontrol – but it is distinct, because
biocontrol does not allow the use of
pesticides. Advancements in IPM are likely to
also bring about advancements in biocontrol,
due to this overlapping relationship.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesThe North Florida REC faculty collaborate with faculty at FAMU on topics of interest, particularly on
small farm issues. Limitations are introduced through FAMU faculty’s heavy teaching loads, which makes
them less available to meet research goals stipulated by grant funding arrangements. FAMU’s research
farm is just north of Quincy, so proximity establishes strong potential. Furthermore, FAMU has
molecular and biotechnology equipment not available to the North Florida REC, so closer involvement
could expand the possibilities of this facility.
The future is promising, as a new Director starting soon at FAMU’s farm has had an extensive
relationship with North Florida RECs. This familiarity and comfort level sets the stage for better
communication. The collaboration would be most effective in the area of small‐farm IPM, and may not
be a fit for bioenergy crops due to the need for larger scale operations. In general, bioenergy crops are
not economically viable on small operations, so the relationship would not likely be focused on this
aspect of Bio‐Ag – at least, not initially. However, if small farms coalesced into co‐ops to share
harvesting equipment, bioenergy crops could be another possible area for collaboration and extension
to small operations in the area.
Senior researchers at the North Florida REC believe they could more easily work with FAMU if budgets
were made more flexible, with more emphasis on results and less constraints on how specifically funds
are spent along the way. With more flexibility, FAMU researchers could be more effective at juggling
Figure 17. Pyrolysis chamber at the North Florida REC (Quincy)
90 | P a g e
their teaching obligations with their research objectives to more successfully meet collaborative end
goals.
UFIFASRangeCattleRECThe Range Cattle REC’s primary topics of interest include forage and animal production issues, disease
and insect problems, animal feeds, and environmental quality. The facility does not keep any confined
animals – so, despite its focus on cattle, its operations would not be suitable for testing large‐scale
manure conversion technology. However, there is some bioenergy research taking place with
production of biomass accumulators, including elephant grass and sugarcane, kept as a variety bank
through a collaborative study.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe Range Cattle REC is unique in that it has a single clientele group – the owners and managers of
Florida’s grazing lands, predominately comprised of cattlemen. This REC operates with adherence to a
set of research priorities and principles agreed upon by an advisory council and the Florida Cattlemen’s
Association. Generally, this does not involve much discussion about Bio‐Ag; however, the Center
Director notes that there could be an economic opportunity on the horizon for these producers and, if
bioenergy gains enough attention, it could become a new focus of the network. A soil scientist and
agronomist are both working in the area of biomass at this REC, funded by a grant that included some
work at private locations.
Additional research could build on previous research conducted at the Range Cattle REC that evaluated
the agronomic aspects of biomass crops in South Florida. Funding could support continued research on
these previously studied crops to evaluate the potential impact of cultivating biomass crops on
environmental parameters.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesThe Range Cattle REC routinely tests materials as cattle feed for nutritional content and general
appropriateness. The researchers have tested meal (the byproduct of oil extraction) from camelina and
other crops as feed, but have not done any work related to Carinata. This could represent untapped
potential at this REC as a way of investing in especially promising feedstock, and spreading awareness to
cattlemen throughout Florida who could help support commercialization of drop‐in jet fuels through
economic viability of Carinata.
UFIFASSouthwestFloridaRECThe Southwest Florida REC is home to Dr. Phil Stansly, who is one of the top scientists in Florida
specializing in Tamarixia radiata, the wasp that preys on the citrus psyllid responsible for spreading
citrus greening. This facility also houses research focused on pests affecting vegetables.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationDr. Calvin Arnold, having recently left the USDA to return to his post at the Southwest Florida REC,
emphasizes the importance of recurring funding due to the necessity of retaining important personnel
91 | P a g e
on an ongoing basis. Other funding, however, such as allocations for facility improvements and
expansion, can be in the form of lump sums.
UFIFASTropicalRECThe Tropical REC (TREC) conducts research on ornamentals, fruits and vegetables, and biofuel crops. Dr.
Wagner Vendrame and other researchers at the TREC have been making substantial progress related to
biofuel crops – particularly Jatropha ‐ for about seven years, collecting germplasms around the world
and developing hybrids with genetic improvements to test in the field. TREC’s Jatropha hybrids are
already showing vigor, with larger leaves and higher growth rates. The main obstacle to this research is
insufficient funding. Dr. Vendrame says this little‐known crop could be ready for the market in one to
two years; it has already shown highly desirable characteristics as a potential source of jet fuel oil.
Dr. Vendrame also notes the untapped bio‐
pharma potential of south Florida crops
such as avocados; a small bottle of their oil
could fetch high prices on the market as an
ingredient in cosmetics, such as creams or
lotions for skin care. Avocados have not
been found to have allergenic properties.
This was one central idea for a business
incubator in Homestead. The Center for
Agri‐Business Prosperity (CAP) was a
proposed joint venture between UF and
Florida International University (FIU). CAP
was meant to be a partnership that would
help foster new businesses by providing
physical space as well as the support and expertise of scientists that would help translate research into
private ventures. It was meant to capitalize on the many students graduating each year with skills in
biotechnology from local universities. In the proposal submitted to Miami‐Dade County Mayor Carlos
Gimenez, the CAP would require 5,200 square feet of high quality technology space as well as a second
facility with laboratory space and additional personnel in 10 offices (16,000 total square feet).
Collectively, the spaces would house projects focusing on biotechnology breakthroughs and new
aromatic oils, soap, juices and other products from local agriculturally produced fruit or nursery
products. The design was based on a successful incubator established by Cornell University, and another
one located in Geneva, New York at the Technology Park (the New York Experimental Station).
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationTREC researchers are planning to raise the cold tolerance of Jatropha, which would make it viable in
central Florida as a replacement crop for struggling citrus growers. This would be an important step
toward commercialization. But available funds at the TREC are running out, and feedstock availability
and yield also need to be improved through further funded research. Dr. Vendrame has even sent
Jatropha cells into space through utilization of the Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) Space Life Sciences
Figure 18. Jatropha at the TREC in Homestead
92 | P a g e
Laboratory (SLSL). Because of TREC’s links with the SLSL and its work on practical management practices,
providing more funds to the TREC could heighten utilization of the KSC, the TREC, and Florida Bio‐Ag
commercialization in general.
On the other hand, the TREC could also develop the cosmetic applications of ornamental and other
crops such as orchids, several species of flowering trees, and fruit trees including avocados. One key
advantage of this research angle is the fact that the scientists already know how to grow these crops;
remaining work to be done involves using new technology like bioreactors to produce and harvest them
in larger amounts and to develop the actual products. The TREC researchers are keenly aware of
opportunities such as the anti‐tumor properties possessed by the secondary metabolites in flowering
trees and the cosmetic applications of avocados, but they have never pursued this research before
because they have never received the appropriate funding.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesDr. Vendrame notes that, given further funding, his research would be a good fit for further utilization of
the SLSL. Having flown Jatropha into space before, the TREC has expertise gained through experience,
and would utilize the facilities again at the next available opportunity. Although they have never had a
permanent research space at the SLSL, they would use one if made available. Researchers at the TREC
have already communicated with a private company, called Zero Gravity Solutions, about potential
collaboration opportunities ‐ so inducing a TREC presence could potentially grow into additional private
partnerships at the SLSL as well.
In addition, providing funds for the aforementioned agricultural small business incubator (CAP),
including seed money, to the TREC could help local growers thrive at the vanguard of new Bio‐Ag
commercialization opportunities – specifically through local commercial production of the
aforementioned biopharma crops. Providing funds, along with clearly defined goals, could increase the
positive local economic impact of the TREC while advancing Florida‐specific Bio‐Ag. One required goal,
for example, could be research and extension on producing the valuable oil from the avocados
mentioned above. The TREC believe that funding the CAP could be very effective in accomplishing a
regional economic impact focused on related innovations.
UFIFASWestFloridaREC(Jay/Milton)Bioenergy is the main Bio‐Ag topic of expertise at the Jay Research Facility. In particular, faculty are
developing management plans for bioenergy crops, including sweet sorghum and Carinata, and
assessing their fitness for Florida. Among other factors, the Jay Research Facility is researching the input
requirements and potential invasiveness of these crops. They have also evaluated previously developed
biocontrol products.
The Milton facility’s research activity is not relevant to Bio‐Ag, according to the West Florida REC
associate center director. The topics there are primarily forestry and natural resource conservation.
93 | P a g e
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe West Florida REC recently filled an open position for a cropping agronomist, but additional funding
for further hires could help expand its role in bioenergy research. As with many other facilities, the main
need at this facility is additional personnel.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesMaximizing the benefits of research and development is dependent upon effective communication and
shared resources between parties working towards a common goal. Fortunately, the West Florida REC is
actively collaborating with the other IFAS units pursuing the same crops. They collaborate with the
North Florida REC on Carinata research, and they work with the researchers in Gainesville on sweet
sorghum. However, there is reportedly no collaboration with private partners. Because the North Florida
REC works with the private company pursuing Carinata (Applied Research Associates, described in the
ARA Engineering Science Division section), the West Florida REC’s research likely flows to the private
sector through this link. However, their research may not be reaching the private companies pursuing
sweet sorghum for bioenergy; although Southeast Renewable Fuels (described in the SRF Ethanol Plant
section) has worked with IFAS.
UFIFASAustinCaryMemorialForestThis area primarily hosts research on silviculture, and does not appear suitable for Bio‐Ag.
UFIFASFloridaMedicalEntomologyLaboratoryThe Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory is chiefly concerned with public health and disease
transmission, veterinary science, and other aspects of medical entomology; it is not particularly fit for
Bio‐Ag research and does not focus on biocontrol.
UFIFASFloridaPartnershipforWater,AgricultureandCommunitySustainabilityatHastingsOverall, this facility focuses on production of commercial vegetables such as potatoes and cabbage, with
sorghum as a standard cover crop. Hastings also assesses different feedstocks – including sweet
sorghum, Camelina, and corn grain ‐ for their ethanol content. This facility operates in close
collaboration with the Suwannee Valley Agricultural Extension Center; 10 to 15 acres of sweet sorghum
is grown in Hastings specifically for faculty members at Suwannee to analyze. The Hastings facility is
concentrated on extension, while Suwannee complements it with a more research‐oriented approach.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationHastings perceives interest slowly returning to bioenergy prospects, and would do more energy crop
assessment with additional funding for assessing crop potential, supporting personnel, and conducting
lab analysis. The only additional equipment needed at Hastings is a press for extracting sugar.
Fully capturing the potential of bioenergy crops is accelerated by building on the discoveries made by
existing research. Hastings Center Director Scott Taylor notes that sweet sorghum research has been
conducted extensively in western states, including Texas, Arizona, and Oklahoma. Additional funding
94 | P a g e
would be used to incorporate fundamental best practices while developing the needed customizations
for Florida production.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesExtension is at least as important as scientific research in commercialization. The Hastings facility could
be instrumental in adoption of sweet sorghum in the field and, given additional funding, could step up
its efforts in this area. Success would entail not only a step forward in commercial biofuel production
but also improved economic resilience for agricultural producers in the area, who could add sweet
sorghum as a secondary crop to complement their potato production.
UFIFASOrdway‐SwisherBiologicalStationThis biological station focuses on ecosystem research and other environmental issues such as aquifer
recharge; Bio‐Ag research is not directly consistent with its mission.
UFIFASPlantScienceResearchandEducationUnitThe Plant Science facility works on breeding, pesticides, and fertilizer. More information is needed to
recommend increased utilization for Bio‐Ag.
UFIFASSuwanneeValleyAgriculturalExtensionCenterThis extension center focuses on IPM and other management issues such as fertilizer and greenhouse
hydroponics, but also conducts research on bioenergy, assessing sugar content of sweet sorghum and
other crops. It shares the same Center Director as the Hastings facility (described in the UF IFAS Florida
Partnership for Water, Agriculture and Community Sustainability at Hastings section), and complements
its production with additional research. While the Suwannee Valley facility has approximately 8 acres
dedicated to growing sweet sorghum, it analyzes genetics and breeding issues for additional sweet
sorghum grown in Hastings as well, as part of its shared resource approach.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe Suwannee Valley facility needs irrigation upgrades to meet its full crop production potential;
funding requirements include half for equipment and half for staff. The purpose of this funding would be
focused on development of management practices for greenhouses and attracting and harboring
natural enemies in open field settings for fruit orchard and field vegetables. It would also go toward
more extension to growers.
UFIFASTropicalAquacultureLaboratory(Ruskin)This facility focuses on fish disease diagnostic services as well as other aspects of tropical aquaculture. It
is not especially suitable for Bio‐Ag endeavors.
FAMUCenterforViticultureandSmallFruitResearchFAMU’s Center for Viticulture and Small Fruit Research, located in Tallahassee, is developing innovations
to leverage the benefits of antioxidants from Muscadine grapes and to explore how they can produce
valuable food supplements and anti‐inflammatories. These efforts in viticulture could be a bio‐pharma
95 | P a g e
springboard for Florida’s grape industry. FAMU’s Center, which comprises the only research station in
Florida focusing exclusively on grapes, has capital such as greenhouses, electron microscopes, and
molecular sequencing machines. The Center has suffered declining funds in the past decade.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationEstimates reflect only 50% utilization of bio‐pharma research equipment at the Center for Viticulture
and Small Fruit Research. In order to more productively utilize these existing assets, the Center needs to
hire competent specialists like food chemists – but sufficient funds have not been available. Funding for
needed capital such as a bio‐processing unit for grape skin and seed is also lacking. Further, FAMU’s
funding allocation is derived from the university’s general revenue, providing no real aim. Researchers at
the station indicate a need for a line item budget which identifies clear objectives and specific funding
amounts tied to accomplishment of each objective, which would provide more sufficient direction and
reveal realistic quantities needed.
New personnel requirements include a microbiologist for fermentation and winemaking, a food
engineer for extraction, prototype development and potency retention, and an enologist for other
advanced winemaking research. One additional lab technician is also needed.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesFAMU researchers estimate that more than 95% of the grape pomace byproduct from Florida vineyards
is currently being thrown away. Given ample resources and direction, the Center could play a crucial role
in providing extension services that would encourage harvesting and monetizing of this byproduct,
leading to increased investment in innovative biopharma products as well as higher overall industry
efficiency.
FAMUCollegeofAgricultureandFoodSciencesFAMU’s College of Agriculture and Food Sciences conducts research on plant compounds. Two
campuses are involved; the 260 acre farm at Quincy, which also provides cooperative extension services,
and the Perry‐Paige building on the main campus. The College also supports a library of plants and
herbs that can be grown in Florida and that have been partly evaluated for pharmacological properties.
The historical emphasis has been on anti‐cancer agents, anti‐inflammatories and treatments for specific
ailments including hyperhidrosis, which affects 7.8 million Americans.
FAMU maintains a BioEnergy group of faculty and affiliates addressing several initiatives in feedstock
development and conversion processes. The Quincy property supports several parallel research efforts:
Moringa, which is being assessed for its medicinal properties; Camelina, for oilseed production to
support bioenergy; seashore mallow, for oilseed production on marginal land during off‐seasons; and
roughly 70 acres in agro‐forestry, where understory crops and groundcovers are tested and harvested
timber is currently exported for pulp. Researchers there are working to synthesize a toxin previously
identified from fungus for Taxol into a spore that can be mass‐produced; currently the expectation is
that this product will enter the market within 3‐4 years. Complementary uses on site include a
veterinarian technician laboratory and training facility, beehives for research into bee colony collapse
96 | P a g e
disorder, livestock pastures, aquaculture ponds and a restored wetland ecosystem used for class field
studies.
The Perry‐Paige building has lab space on three of four floors; the majority of the largest lab is currently
directed towards research in bio‐char, produced by pyrolysis, which is directly relevant to Bio‐Ag. Other
labs are doing dual‐duty in terms of supporting classroom‐based work as well as Bio‐Ag research. Area
for one lab was created by partitioning classroom space.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationFAMU has been entrepreneurial in identifying opportunities to leverage federal funding from the
National Institutes of Health (rather than simply requesting grants), and has collaborated with
Monsanto, DuPont, Pioneer, U.S. Forestry Service, and Auburn University. The staff carries a heavy
teaching load, and there is underutilized lab space and acreage at the Farm, due to lack of funding for
critical equipment, reconfiguration of space to accommodate current needs, and postdoctoral student
support.
While select lab equipment is new, purchased through recent grants, other equipment (at both The
Farm and at Perry‐Paige) is dated. Retrofit and upgrades to the primary lab housing growth chambers
for plant research resulted in damage to a laboratory hood, still needed for effective use of that space.
FAMU’s work in Seashore Mallow, Camelina, Moringa and other species could yield a range of new
products.
UniversityofSouthFlorida(USF)BiopharmaResearchUSF’s biopharma research has concentrated on isolating the toxic and beneficial components of a wide
range of plant species, including goji, gingko, turmeric and various types of ginger. Beneficial uses
include auto‐immune responses and suppression of cancer.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe USF School of Pharmacy identified funding needs to conduct the proposed scope of research on the
above species to the point where practical applications of findings and commercialization would be the
next step.
DACSDundeeBiologicalControlLaboratoryThe new insectary in Dundee, Florida has recently begun operations with collaborative support from the
FDACS Division of Plant Industry (DPI) and IFAS to rear Tamarixia radiata, a natural enemy of the citrus
psyllid, the pest causing citrus greening. This facility could potentially serve as the central hub for a new
pilot project to commercialize biocontrol products, once several logistical criteria are met.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe current production capacity of the Dundee lab is about 100,000 wasps per month – about the same
as the production capacity in Gainesville. This production capacity has only been reached in the past
year, and the process has included hiring four assistants for production. The lab has secured
Huanglongbing Multi‐Agency Coordination (MAC) funds from the USDA that will allow it to triple its
97 | P a g e
capacity, including the new ability to utilize a currently vacant building to simultaneously rear three
distinct strains of the wasp. However, there is additional unutilized space at the site that needs further
funding to renovate.
The Dundee lab is raising orange jasmine as a host plant for
psyllids; the facility currently houses approximately 9,000 one‐
gallon pots of the plant which undergo three to six feeding and
cleaning cycles per year. Ongoing research is aimed, in part, at
increasing parasitism rates; in other locations around the world,
Tamarixia has had a parasitism rate of between 60% and 80%, but
in Florida that figure is close to 20%. To boost parasitism rates, the
Lab is adjusting its processes to transition from classical to
augmentative biocontrol methods. Classical biocontrol is the early‐
stage establishment of a permanent natural enemy population,
while augmentative biocontrol is shorter term in nature and is
focused on periodically releasing natural enemies for temporary
spikes in population – much like a living pesticide.
Field releases are a key part of the lab’s operations, with particular
growers – such as those surrounded by abandoned groves or those who have reduced their pesticide
spray – serving as the best candidates for release. The test releases employ 3,000 to 5,000 wasps per 10‐
acre block, every three weeks. One gap here is the collection and analysis of release data; crucially, more
funding is needed for better management of data that will increase understanding of this process. This
could include additional support staff for monitoring and data collection. In addition, more faculty could
be hired to more dramatically scale up research on parasitism rates and dispersal effects. Hiring four
more technicians and one faculty member would effectively double the existing support capacity for
data collection, and would also enable more parasitism research.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentives
While the early phases of natural enemy introduction –
ranging from initial exploration in the wild to construction
of mass rearing facilities – are best left to scientists and
government officials, there is a step in the process at
which private companies could become involved. Once
these programs are documented and established, they
require ongoing rearing and maintenance to keep insect
populations at sufficient quantities. Akin to provision of
automobile maintenance services, insect populations can
be reared and released periodically by a private business
to keep the natural enemies operating smoothly.
The insectary in Dundee is well‐suited for a project exploring this concept. For one, it is in the early
stages and has not yet reached maturation, so a plan can be put in place to prepare it well in enough in
Figure 19. Abandoned facility from previous land use
Figure 20. Rearing room in Dundee
98 | P a g e
advance for transition to private partnership. Secondly, the natural enemy housed there is poised for
major market demand due to the pervasiveness and severity of the citrus greening problem.
LocalFacilities
TreasureCoastResearchParkThe Treasure Coast Research Park serves as land reserved to buffer the USDA – Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) and UF IFAS facilities in Fort Pierce, Florida, that were first built in 2000. The additional
buffer land for the research park was set aside in 2009, centered on these facilities, to prevent
encroachment on research by incompatible land use and development in the county. The USDA and UF
have about 250,000 square feet of buildings at the Park, occupied by approximately 250 scientists and
staff. Since the beginning of the park in 2009, $5 million worth of infrastructure such as roads,
stormwater management, and water retention has been built in order to support tenants. The FDACS
Department of Energy (DOE) has provided $700,000 to park tenants for growing sugar beets and e‐
tubers to accelerate their certification as advanced biofuel feedstocks.
Plans are in place to build another 3 million square feet in the next 30‐40 years, with the goal of 100,000
square feet of new construction per year within the Park’s three square miles of land. Current crops
include hybrid peaches, grapes, blueberries, and additional new hybrids with heightened climate
tolerance. 30 acres are currently dedicated to biofuel, with most of the remainder comprised of food
crops. The Park includes a biofuel processing facility for citrus peel. In total, the Park could support 1,650
acres of crops. There are 497 acres reserved for future development, while the rest (400‐500 acres) is
dedicated to the local school district, USDA, UF, and others. Ben DeVries, the Director of the Research
Park, is collaborating with the Advanced Biofuels Association, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels
Initiative (CAAFI), the USDA, and the U.S. Navy.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationEfforts are underway to attract more tenants to the park, such as Virent, an innovative leader in biofuels
and biochemical products that is developing sugar syrup as a drop‐in jet fuel. The wider Treasure Coast
Region has about 500,000 total acres of fallow fields, lost to citrus greening. One primary goal of the
Research Park is to help place 100,000 acres of these fallow fields into production of biofuel. The Park is
specifically targeting e‐tubers and beets. Virent is being recruited to fill the processing role. The Park’s
growth plan is aggressive and efforts are currently underway to fully utilize its capacity.
FederalFacilitiesFlorida is home to a sizable collection of federal facilities, including the Kennedy Space Center (KSC),
with direct applications in Bio‐Ag investment. Many of these facilities partner with some of the above
mentioned state and local entities to share resources; some of these arrangements have potential for
acceleration. Site visits and interviews have revealed the primary functions of many of these federal
facilities, as well as their capacity for further utilization and their possession of unique capital. One
specific goal of this study is to include analysis of possible capacity utilization improvements applicable
to the KSC, which is explored below, along with each of Florida’s USDA research facilities.
99 | P a g e
With several of Florida’s federal facilities teetering on the verge of full commercialization and others in
the very early stages of the pathway introduced in this memo, the overall average appears to be in the
middle. A few particular projects, such as the U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory’s citrus peel waste‐
to‐ethanol conversion process, have already secured private partners who are bringing it to market;
others, such as the biochemical fracking products being developed at the same facility, are nearly ready
for market entry as well. The USDA is also working on developing exotic herbivores to control invasive
weeds, a research task that is characterized both by early‐stage development and inherent constraints
to commercial viability.
The table below provides characteristics of each of the federal facilities specified by the Scope of Work;
a more comprehensive version appears in a later section.
Table 8. Characteristics of Federal Facilities
Facility Crops Available Testing Expertise
Years in Operation
Production Acres
Total Staff
Facility Square Footage
KSC Space Life Sciences
Lab
Oranges (fallow) Plant pathology
Payloads, biotechnology,
microbial research, plant research
11 120 99 109,000
USDA Center for Medical, Agricultural
and Veterinary Entomology
None (insects) Pheromone trap and other
biocontrol
Pest behavior and biocontrol
52 10 200 325,000
USDA Invasive Plant
Research Laboratory
None (biocontrol agents)
Biocontrol suitability
Biocontrol agents, weeds
45 100 26 21,000
USDA Subtropical Agricultural Research Station (Closed)
Hay (fallow) NA NA NA NA NA NA
USDA Subtropical Horticulture Research
Sugarcane, moringa, tropical/subtropical
crops
Genetic testing
Tropical/subtropical crops, pests, wastewater
91 200 29 32,766
USDA Sugarcane Production Research
Sugarcane Sugar content,
physiology, disease
Cultivar development, yield management, soil
subsidence
94 146 31 37,484
USDA U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory
Vegetables, nursery crops
Greening resistance
Algal turf scrubbers,
phytoremediation
14 320 160 170,000
100 | P a g e
KSCSpaceLifeSciencesLabThe Space Life Sciences Lab (SLSL) is a key focal point of the Kennedy Space Center in the context of
Florida’s ability to affect Bio‐Ag utilization. The building is owned by Space Florida, and hosts a regional
office of the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), which exists to manage the
International Space Station (ISS) U.S. National Laboratory and maximize its use, as well as several private
companies and other assorted researchers. NASA has maintained a considerable presence at the SLSL
previously, but is currently completing a comprehensive withdrawal of personnel due to budget
struggles. The facility contains environmental growth chambers and other equipment especially suitable
for Bio‐Ag research. The facility is able to accommodate a diverse spectrum of processes. In order to
attract new tenants in significant numbers and improve utilization, the SLSL must focus and specialize
within this set of available options.
Recent trends have rendered large portions of the SLSL – and potential synergies with nearby assets ‐
underutilized. The lab has fewer than half the professional staff it had 15‐20 years ago, and several
projects have stalled or been terminated with insufficient funding to support staff with advanced
degrees.
The SLSL has a unique strategic position; located outside the main KSC gate, its tenants do not need the
degree of badge clearance required by the rest of the KSC. This more relaxed access procedure gives it a
competitive advantage in attracting international research teams. Indeed, the Japan Aerospace
Exploration Agency (JAXA) has already agreed to maintain a presence on the premises. This competitive
advantage is just one component of the SLSL’s underutilized potential. Key recommendations are below.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe SLSL must first develop a focused marketing and public relations plan. According to Dr. Rob Ferl, a
prominent UF scientist with links to the SLSL, the loss of NASA personnel was a primary catalyst for the
facility’s loss of focus. The synergy with NASA had been a fundamental element of the facility’s mission
and core strengths. First, focus and direction must be restored to make the site attractive to potential
tenants. Establishing the intersection of space and agriculture as a new focus will allow the facility to
leverage its strong assets – including access to the ISS and the on‐site environmental growth chambers –
to attract talent, increasing utilization while also strengthening the facility’s potential as a hotbed of Bio‐
Ag research.
Another crucial step to full utilization is to recruit international researchers to replace NASA’S expertise
and restore lost synergy. UF’s synergy with NASA was a tremendous benefit to the facility’s research.
Space and agriculture specialists created a unique nexus of knowledge due simply to their shared
proximity. Now, with NASA pulling out of the SLSL, that synergy has dissipated. NASA left in order to
eliminate the costs of renting the facility from the state of Florida; fortunately, though, substitutes are
available. UF researchers believe an agricultural bioscientist could emulate the same kind of synergy.
The SLSL should recruit similar expertise by reaching out to appropriate international companies or
researchers, who may be willing to pay for use of the space. The SLSL should hire a renowned
international agricultural bioscience researcher, with up to 20 years of experience, who could have the
additional effect of attracting further researchers through name recognition.
101 | P a g e
Another effective strategy is the option of restoring previous relationships that have remaining
untapped potential. Access to the ISS National Laboratory microgravity environment has yielded potent
research results; space‐induced mutation speeds up research processes through rapid development of
new crop varieties. UF‐affiliated researchers, such as some at the Tropical REC, have previously utilized
the SLSL to carry out space‐focused agricultural research, and indicate an interest in doing so again with
more funding support. Setting aside funding specifically for restoring previously fruitful collaborations
would be effective at increasing facility utilization while constraining benefits to Florida entities.
USDACenterforMedical,AgriculturalandVeterinaryEntomologyThe Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology conducts testing and experimentation
related to biocontrol products, including pheromone traps. The Center is composed of four units,
including a mosquito unit, a fire ant unit, a chemistry unit (which develops pheromone biocontrol traps),
and a behavior and biocontrol unit. The Center has produced about 40 new patents in the last 3 years.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe Center’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with IFAS, which guided how to share information
and collaborate, has expired. This is likely leaving a gap where in the past a connection has allowed
information sharing to stimulate higher research productivity and facility utilization, especially given the
facility’s location within UF’s Gainesville campus.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesThe Center has been working with the Office of Technology Transfer to license patents to commercial
industries. While the consumption of the products often takes place in Florida where the demand
originates, the patents often go to companies outside of the state. State efforts may be appropriate to
recruit these firms to Florida where the demand is to allow the state to capture more of the commercial
benefits of this research.
The Center is also developing RNA Interference (RNAI) techniques to attack genes in mosquitos without
any chemicals, working with private companies to make these innovations scalable. Researchers at the
Center believe this could be applied to the citrus psyllid. Additional funding should be supplied to launch
a dedicated research project investigating the ability of RNAI to fight citrus greening to meet the proven
demand from growers who need to fight this severe disease. Connecting this technology to companies
based specifically in Florida could keep more economic development from commercialization in the
state while simultaneously bolstering the portfolio of measures to fight citrus greening.
USDAInvasivePlantResearchLaboratoryThe USDA’s Invasive Plant Research Laboratory develops biocontrol agents, with special attention paid
to weeds. The facility tests species for suitability and collaborates with state, federal, and county
government. Much like natural enemy specialists, researchers at this facility engage in foreign
exploration and collaborate with overseas labs to obtain and evaluate exotic herbivores as possible
biocontrol agents.
102 | P a g e
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationAmong other things, scientists at the Lab conduct molecular work to identify the taxonomy of new
weeds; investment in required capital would expand the possibilities of this facility’s research. The Lab
could benefit from more resources for bio‐modeling with predictive tools to better inform pre‐release
decisions. Genomics is another area that could benefit from increased support.
The Invasive Plant Research Lab’s main invasive plants of interest are Brazilian peppers, Chinese tallow,
and Australian pine. The quarantine and testing phase is complete, and researchers are currently writing
reports for regulators, who will decide if the corresponding biocontrol agents can be released. If
approval is granted, this will create a substantial new opportunity for further research. To prepare and
to fully pursue the research opportunities, the facility would add new hires and new equipment.
USDASubtropicalAgriculturalResearchStation(Closed)The USDA Subtropical Agricultural Research Station in Brooksville, Florida was closed in June 2012,
transferring away or retiring all federal personnel there. According to Dr. Chadwick Chase, the former
Acting Research Leader, the properties remain vacant to this day. Containing about 3,800 acres of land
and about 15,000 square feet of facilities, the site had approximately four researchers and fifteen
support staff. Production focused on hay and cattle, with cattle reproduction and nutrition and soil and
water quality as primary research topics.
RecommendationsonreestablishmentofanyabandonedfacilitiesDr. Chase believes this site has excellent potential for reestablishment of cattle and hay operation.
Weed control, fertilizer, and other fundamental management inputs would also need to be
reestablished for full utilization. One potential research avenue at this facility for Bio‐Ag is the feasibility
of particular types of bioenergy byproducts and other materials as cattle feed.
USDASubtropicalHorticultureResearchWhile research takes place at this facility, a main focus at the USDA Subtropical Horticulture Research
facility is the public distribution of germplasms. It is primarily a germplasm repository for subtropical
plants such as Miscanthus, sugarcane, avocado, mango, and even lychee. Specifically, it is a repository
for plants which are recalcitrant – meaning their seeds cannot easily be preserved under stress. The
facility boasts the largest collection of accessible sugarcane in the world, and sends supplies to Brazil,
Japan, Australia and other countries. A shining example of synergy, the facility hosts personnel from the
Department of Plant Inspection (DPI), the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and even Mars, the private candy company. The Lab is currently
reaching out to solicit collaboration with Brazil, Israel, and Australia to assemble the mango genome,
which could be helpful in bio‐pharma applications.
The facility is also conducting biocontrol research, with entomologists working on traps for the red bay
ambrosia beetle, which causes laurel wilt. For the past 2 to 3 years, though, the primary research topic
at this facility has been sugarcane. The facility houses advanced equipment such as its electro‐
antannagram, an asset which has allowed effective solicitation of international partnerships.
103 | P a g e
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThere may be potential for increased collaboration at this facility with UF IFAS and others. The facility’s
most recent five‐year plan includes a strategy to research Moringa which, as noted previously, has
potential for medical research and biofuel. The North Florida REC could be a potential partner for USDA
Subtropical Horticulture Research, due to the REC’s recent decision to pursue its new moringa project.
The biopharma applications at the facility also include mangoes, which have anti‐cancer compounds in
the leaves. Research is underway to identify the time of year that leads to the highest possible yield of
mangoes. Because the main funding at the facility is tied to maintaining and curating the germplasm
collection (which is unique to the facility), biopharma research interests are not considered high priority.
There is potential to offer funding or seek out an expanded state presence at the facility with specific
goals to work with mangoes and other biopharma crops there, increasing utilization of on‐site assets.
Researchers at this facility believe their ornamental collection is underutilized, which could be valuable
as a potential resource‐sharing component with the TREC, given its ambitions to pursue biopharma
research focused on ornamentals – especially given the proximity between these two operations.
USDASugarcaneProductionResearchThe USDA’s Sugarcane Production Research facility focuses on cultivar development, optimal cane yield
management, and soil subsidence, with clear applications to bioenergy.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationDr. Jack Comstock believes the Sugarcane facility could leverage more of its capacity to develop plant
resistance to diseases such as brown and orange rust and yellow leaf. The site could also develop better
ways to maximize sugar content through molecular marker research, and could further increase cold
and drought tolerance through abiotic stress resistance.
This research could be completed through an agreement between the USDA‐ARS, Everglades Research
and Education Center (EREC), and the Florida Sugarcane League. Additional collaboration would involve
the USDA Sugarcane Field Station, the Subtropical Horticultural Research Station in Miami, and the
TREC. The main goal of these research projects would be improvement of germplasm and cultivar
production.
Additional funding would be needed to support postdoc researchers, technicians and contracted bio‐
informaticists as well as visiting scientists. Molecular equipment would also be obtained with further
funding, such as robotic equipment and high throughput DNA thermal cyclers to screen large numbers
of genotypes for specific traits.
USDAU.S.HorticulturalResearchLaboratoryThe USDA U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory has previously conducted bioenergy research. Their
supply of bioenergy specialists has dwindled, but the facility has made advancements in converting
citrus peel waste to fuel ethanol. Having completed the main objectives of this research, the facility has
succeeded in galvanizing early commercialization; a private partner in Winter Haven, Renewable Spirits,
is already using the technology. The Lab is now researching the extraction of peel waste such as pectin
104 | P a g e
and polysaccharides as biochemical products for industrial uses, such as drilling mud for fracking.
Researchers are already looking to enter into Cooperative Research and Development Agreements
(CRADAs) with private companies focused on these industrial products.
The Lab maintains a presence in the biocontrol field, with 8 scientists actively engaged in biocontrol
research and the development of technology that enhances biocontrol practices. The Lab collaborates
with UF IFAS and other universities across the country, including UC Davis and Texas A&M.
Research at this lab has received grants from the California Citrus Research Board to produce further
citrus research. The facility has about 30 different labs in total, with specialized equipment such as the
scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM), which is used to look into the stomachs of insects or
into plant tissue for the purpose of better understanding their roles in biocontrol. They also have a
spectrophotometer to determine how to use pheromones for repelling pests or attracting them into
traps.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe Lab needs to recruit new hires to fill its specific staffing needs. According to veteran researchers of
the facility, additional grant money would have a substantial impact that would allow enhanced
production of new technologies there. A high priority for this Lab, and from the state of Florida’s
perspective, is the need to recruit more bio‐informaticists. The U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory
constantly runs sequencers, generating large volumes of DNA nucleotide sequence data. Thanks to this
technology, scientists at the U.S. Horticultural Research Lab now possess all the sequences involved in
citrus greening, but they need to hire staff with the skills to analyze the information. A bio‐informaticist
– leveraging skills in computer science, statistics, and biology – could use this information to identify the
gene that causes the citrus greening bacteria to attack crops. If correctly identified, the gene could be
turned off, advancing the fight against greening.
Another area at this facility that could benefit from further support is research on ethanol from orange
peels – but researchers specializing in this field are becoming increasingly scarce, so additional funds
should target recruitment and retention of these specialists as well.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesThis lab could share its DNA sequence data with the Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary
Entomology, which is also working on DNA‐based biocontrol techniques, and may be able to provide
assistance in analyzing this data to speed research progress through synergy.
Dr. Calvin Arnold, who recently transitioned from this lab to UF IFAS, believes that the state legislature
could make more money available for matching funds and other incentives for agricultural producers to
become engaged in growing Bio‐Ag crops. Education should be bundled with these to empower growers
with the knowledge on how to take advantage of the incentives and manage the crops in the field.
The citrus peels at this facility are sourced from citrus processing plants, because the peel has already
been removed. Connecting local citrus growers with an alternative process for diseased fruit may
provide a secondary revenue stream.
105 | P a g e
PrivateFacilitiesPrivate facilities are essential to commercialization of Bio‐Ag innovations, and capitalize on research at
state or federal facilities listed above. A successful and rapid commercialization pathway includes
communication between research facilities and private investors. Understanding the capacity,
successes, failures, and needs of private facilities is critical to forming a well‐designed commercialization
strategy. The facilities below range from biomass power to development of drop‐in jet fuels. Site visits
and interviews identified the factors which propel these facilities’ viability and, while physical and
processing data may be more guarded and thus difficult to collect, the input from these private parties
must be given special attention.
The following table provides a summary of characteristics of the private entities specified in Scope of
Work, with a more comprehensive version provided in a later section:
106 | P a g e
Table 9. Summary of characteristics of Private Entities
Facility Status Feedstock Output Years in Operation
Production Acres
Facility Square Footage
ADAGE Gadsden Biopower Canceled Wood waste Bioenergy ‐ NA NA
ADAGE Hamilton Biopower Canceled Wood waste Bioenergy ‐ NA NA
Algenol Biofuels Active Blue green algae
Ethanol and others
8 36 80,000
ARA Engineering Science Division
Active Carinata, pine, etc.
Jet biofuel 8 NA NA
Bartow Ethanol Active Citrus Alcohol, ethanol
(potential)
34 ‐ 80,000
Florida Biomass Energy Delayed Wood/yard waste
Biomass energy
Future NA NA
Gainesville Renewable Energy Center
Active Wood waste Biomass Energy
<1 131 300,000
Green Circle Bioenergy Active Southern yellow pine, hardwoods
Wood pellets
6 225 DND
Highlands Envirofuels In Progress Sweet sorghum, sugar cane
Ethanol Future 30,000 NA
Latt Maxcy Biofuel Farm In Progress Sorghum Biofuels Future 23,505 NA
Northwest Florida Renewable Energy Center
Canceled Woody biomass Energy ‐ NA NA
Renewable Spirits Active Citrus processing waste
Ethanol, limonene, pectic
fragments
11 0 2,500
SRF Ethanol Plant In Progress Sweet sorghum Ethanol Future 25,000 DND
Stan Mayfield Biorefinery Pilot Plant
Active Many Ethanol 5 2 21,066
St. Lucie Plasma Gasification Facility
Canceled Landfill garbage Energy ‐ NA NA
Thor Renewable Energy Facility
Canceled Cellulosics biomass
Energy ‐ NA NA
Vercipia Ethanol Facility Canceled Energy cane Ethanol ‐ NA NA
As previously discussed, private facilities are by nature more concentrated in the advanced section of
the commercialization pathway. Private facilities which are already operating, such as the Gainesville
Renewable Energy Center, can be said to have moved beyond the final section (pre‐launch) and into full
commercialization. Private facilities which have not yet opened their doors, on the other hand, largely
hover between advanced development and the pre‐launch phase. Private companies such as Southeast
107 | P a g e
Renewable Fuels have already fulfilled all of their permitting requirements, set aside the necessary
acreage for production of crops, and have secured the proven technology that enables reliable
production. Reflecting the risk entailed in commercialization is the polarization among them; they are
either strongly positioned in the commercialization pathway, or have been cancelled – often before
officially opening for business. The full profiles of private facilities follow below.
ADAGEGadsdenBiopower/ADAGEHamiltonBiopower(Cancelled)These two proposed power plants, first conceived in 2008, were to be fueled by woody biomass
comprised of woody debris and residue from saw mills and paper mills, with capacities averaging 55
megawatts. These were largely fully developed and permitted; the only component lacking was the
power purchase agreement. Both facilities were part of a joint venture between Duke Energy and
AREVA. These partners formed a strategy to leverage the advantages arising from their identities as
large, experienced energy companies. Former participants attest that the projects came to a halt due to
market fluctuations; at the time of conception, demand was rising for renewable energy and natural gas
prices were high. This situation reversed in the next three years. Advanced boilers were the primary
specialized equipment.
RecommendationsonreestablishmentofanyabandonedfacilitiesWhile market fluctuation was the core component of ADAGE’s cancellations, there were a few other
factors cited as obstacles that could be the key to restoring biomass activity. The ADAGE project
received economic development incentives, including state and local tax credits for construction and
operation. In this case, market conditions changed, making the project no longer economically viable. A
renewable energy standard or other market regulation such as a power purchase agreement would be
instrumental to success.
AlgenolBiofuelsAlgenol produces ethanol, diesel, jet fuel and gasoline; inputs are comprised of sunshine, carbon
dioxide, salt water, and algae. The beginning of Algenol Biofuels (founded 2006) was a process
developed and patented by Paul Woods that involved putting enzymes into cyanobacteria to facilitate
fermentation. Algenol represents the first large‐scale approach to this technology; while most algae
companies are working with traditional green algae, Algenol is working with blue green algae. Algenol
originally considered locating in Texas, but Lee County, Florida’s economic development grant induced
the operation to remain in Florida. In 2010, Algenol received a Department of Energy grant and began to
work with Lee County. Since then, it has been in the midst of scaling up production. Continuing research
and development is focused on chemicals and yield.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationAlgenol’s expected yield is 8,000 gallons of fuel per acre per year, 6,500 gallons of which is ethanol. This
yield could readily be increased in future development. One ton of Carbon dioxide (CO2) gives 145
pounds of fuel, including 120 pounds of ethanol. Currently, Algenol has 36 acres of land and 80,000
square feet of physical facility space. More land will be necessary for full profitability, as the company
expects that between 1,500 and 2,000 acres is where the necessary economies of scale arise. Algenol
108 | P a g e
touts its ability to put unutilized land back into production, with reclaimed phosphate land listed as a
prime candidate. Management has reportedly met with every major land owner in the state, including
growers affected by citrus greening. Algenol’s full‐scale commercial operation is planned to be in place
in about two years.
EconomicDevelopmentIncentivesAlgenol has successfully pursued partnerships around the world, such as with Reliance Industries in
India. There is also considerable potential for new arrangements; Algenol is in talks with Alstom, a
company building power plants that has a division dedicated to carbon capture, regarding collaboration
opportunities.
ARAEngineeringScienceDivisionSince 2006, Applied Research Associates (ARA) has been doing pioneering work in development of drop‐
in jet fuels from Carinata (sourced from Canada) and, to a lesser extent, pine terpenes (delivered
through an FDACS grant) at its research facility in Panama City, Florida. Although the Carinata supply is
sourced from a Canadian company called Agrisoma, ARA is also working with IFAS on determining the
crop’s suitability in Florida. So far, results are positive. Since 2008, ARA has scaled up from processing
25,000 gallons a day to 125,000 gallons a day at their demonstration plant in Missouri; near‐term plans
include scaling up to 4,200 gallons there. In the Panama City facility, their full capacity is 160 gallons per
day.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationARA echoes the importance of a renewable fuel standard as a
mechanism for boosting production in Florida, with qualifications
that the technology can still survive without subsidies. The
largest hindrance to Florida from ARA’s perspective is the lack of
crushing infrastructure, which would likely be the linchpin of any
large‐scale Carinata commercialization process in Florida.
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesARA noted that a nearby community college had a crusher.
Partnering with the college to increase daily capacity could be an
option for generating a regional economic impact.
BartowEthanolBartow Ethanol currently sells no ethanol for energy, but the facility has the majority of needed
equipment, such as distilling and evaporating equipment and boilers. The plant is a fitting example of
potential bioenergy production, having engaged in preliminary discussions with the Stan Mayfield plant.
The plant’s primary output is currently citrus alcohol, sold to companies such as Jim Beam and Jack
Daniels.
Figure 21. A 350‐gallon crate of Carinata fuel, representing about two days of
production
109 | P a g e
Figure 22. Infrastructure at the GREC
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationAccording to management, Bartow Ethanol is around 75% ready to incorporate ethanol production into
its operations; if additional funding could support the remaining needs, the plant could serve as one
pilot location for proving the economics of ethanol.
FloridaBiomassEnergy(Cancelled)In October 2009, Florida Biomass Energy, LLC (FBE) submitted an application for an air construction
permit in order to construct a 60 megawatt power plant to be fueled by woody biomass from tree and
bush clippings. The plant was to be located in Manatee County, in Palmetto, Florida. The plan included a
grate‐type suspension boiler (GSB) and other equipment. After missing out on available bonds for
construction through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, FBE turned to equity investment
groups in 2011 to raise money for the plant. The facility is now reported as inactive.
GainesvilleRenewableEnergyCenterThe 131‐acre Gainesville Renewable Energy Center (GREC) is currently operating with a full capacity of
102.5 megawatts, with an agreement in place to sell all of its biomass energy to Gainesville Regional
Utilities (GRU) at a fixed (base) rate for 30 years, plus variable costs. The GREC receives fuel from
producers within a “woodshed” radius of 75 miles and an average producer radius of 47 miles. All fuel is
transported to the facility by truck, with deliveries made 5 to 6 days a week from 100 to 150 trucks a
day.
The supply chain for the GREC involves 40% of the
wood coming from urban sources, primarily tree
debris and vegetative waste. Sixty percent comes
from forestry, including logging residuals and trees.
Roughly half of the forestry supply derives from
“low‐grade” (non‐merchantable) stands and mixed
hardwoods while the remainder is residuals from
traditional pulp logging operations. No treated
boards or construction materials are accepted, due
to the presence of nails as well as the requirements
of the facility’s air quality permit that prohibits the
higher emissions given off by these sources.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe main change needed to make GREC effective, according to its leadership, is a clear energy policy for
Florida. More power could be sold at full capacity if such a policy were designed to encourage it. In
addition, monetizing byproducts could make the plant more efficient and commercially viable, and GREC
has looked into its options. Steam is often sold as a byproduct from biomass plants, but GREC is unable
to do so because of its location; however, the team is looking into the possibility of selling fly ash
(currently stockpiled), which can be used in concrete and road base.
110 | P a g e
Further expansion at this location, i.e., adding new boilers, is not possible because of acreage limitations
and requirements to protect on‐site wetlands and to provide buffers (despite the industrial designations
of adjoining uses).
GreenCircleBioenergyGreen Circle Bioenergy taps into the value of northern Florida’s forestry industry through pelletization of
southern yellow pine, and some hardwoods, for biomass energy. The operation produces roughly
560,000 tons of uniform wood pellets per year on 225 acres. Green Circle is the self‐proclaimed largest
wood pellet producer in Florida, attributing their success to the regional forestry industry and the
growing market for their product – which, as previously stated, is primarily concentrated in Europe
thanks to minimum standard policies that promote demand for biomass fuels. Management notes that
the worldwide use of wood pellets is approaching 20 million tons per year, with at least 16 million of
those tons going to Europe. Expectations indicate that wood pellets will become the largest share of
agriculture exports from the United States, starting this year.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationGreen Circle’s foremost impediment is a lack of sufficient port infrastructure development. Their
perception is that the northern region of Florida has fallen behind in terms of port capacity. Specifically,
Green Circle uses Port Panama City to ship their products; they struggle with the size of the port due to
the need for deeper water. While they sense efforts to improve capacity at Jacksonville, they see these
northern ports as lacking overall compared to Savannah’s port in Georgia. Deepening north Florida ports
would allow Green Circle to further utilize its existing resources and improve its ability to expand
production in the future.
HighlandsEnvirofuels(UnitedStatesEnvirofuels)United States Envirofuels is a full‐service product development company, covering the whole spectrum
from permitting to crop planning to product marketing. It started in 2007 with the goal of building an
advanced ethanol plant with 30 million gallons per year in production capacity from sugarcane and
sweet sorghum. The current status of the operation includes completed site surveys, permits, and 1,000
acres of sugarcane planted. The revised goals include a syrup mill production facility at which harvesting
and crushing will produce bricks of high quality sucrose syrup to be used as a feed material for ethanol
or biochemical production plants. Secondly, a bolt‐on ethanol or biochemical production facility will
interface with the back end of the syrup mill plant.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationHaving initially received $7 million in funding with a three to four year term to spend it as agreed‐upon
milestones would be reached, U.S. Envirofuels was denied a third extension in the summer of 2013.
According to management, the project was 80% “shovel‐ready” at the time funding was lost. Major
investors had also backed out of the project. The growers that are currently invested in this project have
idle land, so there is no expectation that any crops will be displaced. Projected capacity is 30 million
gallons of ethanol per year, or 40,000 tons of biochemicals per year. This production capacity can all be
considered underutilized potential due to lack of funds.
111 | P a g e
RecommendedEconomicDevelopmentIncentivesU.S. Envirofuels expects to create 60 permanent jobs once its plant begins operating; as such, assistance
from the state could help spur this growth (the company is receiving no state funds at the current time).
Economic development groups such as the Florida Opportunity Fund have denied requests for matching
funds from U.S. Envirofuels, citing the required minimum of existing funds as too high for their needs.
LattMaxcyBiofuelFarmApproved but not yet constructed, the planned 32,500‐acre Latt Maxcy Biofuel farm, intended to
produce sorghum, received Consumptive Use and Environmental Resource permits in approximately 6
months. The most recent activity was a modification request for 1,044 acres of citrus to be removed
from the previous permit and transferred to the new land owners. It is a 25‐year permit ending in 2037,
which can be revoked if the new owners don’t demonstrate a need for water in 3 to 5 years. The site will
utilize a closed‐loop furrow irrigation system; this means that the production will reuse water that runs
off of the field, establishing high irrigation efficiency.
NorthwestFloridaRenewableEnergyCenter(Cancelled)Less than a year after announcing plans for a $225 million, 55 megawatt biomass power facility in 2011,
Rentech revealed in its December 2011 report on financial activities that such plans had been cancelled.
The cost of development was prohibitively expensive, especially in the absence of co‐investing partners.
The Northwest Florida Renewable Energy Center was slated to process 930 dry tons per day of forest
residue using a gasifier, creating 85 permanent jobs after the expected 2013 completion. Before the
eventual cancellation, Rentech successfully secured a power purchase agreement with Progress Energy
Florida. Air permits were also granted, and a construction contractor was in place before the plan was
scrapped.
RenewableSpiritsHaving completed promising projects together with the USDA on “steam explosion” for d‐limonene
extraction, Renewable Spirits utilizes a 10,000‐gallon fermenter and disposal equipment in its citrus
research. The facility has been collecting citrus peel waste products and extracting alcohol and oil to
explore the value of co‐products, finding profitability in yields of d‐limonene and ethanol, but has had
trouble finding additional partners to adopt its technology and to collaborate for further refinement.
Renewable Spirits has already obtained three patents related to their processing technology.
Researchers at the site say networking is the biggest missing link that could help the technology gain
more mainstream success.
SRFEthanolPlantHaving begun field trials in 2008, the Southeast Renewable Fuels (SRF) ethanol plant will use sweet
sorghum as a feedstock to ferment sugar and produce ethanol. Commercial operations are expected to
begin in 2015, with plans to use 25,000 acres of agricultural land. Construction is underway of a $150
million plant, with plans to harvest twice a year, and expected annual operating costs of between $20
and $30 million.
112 | P a g e
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationLike nearly every other biomass operation, the Ethanol Plant expresses a desire for reinstatement of
Florida’s eliminated ethanol blending mandate. However, plant executives note that the plant, modeled
after Brazilian ethanol and cogeneration plants, does not depend on subsidies. The plant could operate
more effectively and competitively if grants were made more available, according to executives; they
have seen grants vanish for these types of operations in Florida. Additionally, production at the SRF
plant could be increased if scientific research helped improve starch level evaluation processes.
StanMayfieldBiorefineryPilotPlantThe Stan Mayfield Biorefinery Pilot Plant is a strong asset to Florida Bio‐Ag research due to its
demonstrated success in improving ethanol processing efficiency and its diverse testing potential. The
facility has tested the viability of beets, sorghum, eucalyptus, sugarcane bagasse, and other feedstocks.
This 6,000 square foot facility has vacant spaces reserved for future private research partners – one with
approximately 200 square feet of space, and one with about 400.
The facility has biochemical applications;
BASF has provided funds to the facility for
the development of new compounds from
biomass sugars. The facility is also
producing polylactic acid (PLA) – not a true
plastic but a polyester marketed as a
bioplastic – from cellulosics. The refinery
has improved its conversion efficiencies
for this product as well, which is currently
five to six times more valuable than
ethanol on a per weight basis (price
depending upon quantities purchased).
The product is used in high value medical
implants, low value packaging and field mulch‐film, textiles and utensils. It is biodegradable via microbial
action. Myriant has partnered with the Mayfield facility for PLA applications; commercialization is
pending.
In addition to biochemical opportunities, the Mayfield facility is also examining other uses of the
remainder of the waste stream from its cellulosic ethanol conversion processes. The outputs include
spent cellulosic feedstock “press‐cake,” and wastewater, both of which can be used as fertilizer. An
estimated 35‐40% (by weight) of the biomass feedstock entering the facility remains as feedstock for
these byproducts.
IncreasingFacilityUtilizationThe Center’s greatest hurdle is attracting private collaborators to utilize the reserved spaces. In addition,
the plant needs to hire a supervising professional engineer, among others. Currently, the plant’s main
setback is its lack of private partners; subsidies or other incentives can be directed to induce more
private sector collaboration at the plant. Funds to help fill staffing needs would increase internal
Figure 23. Feedstock entry point at Stan Mayfield Biorefinery Pilot Plant
113 | P a g e
productivity and possibly make the facility more attractive to attracting collaboration. The Mayfield
Plant has potential that would deliver return on investment; for example, it is developing
microorganisms used in fermentation, which could lower ethanol’s processing prices – a primary barrier
to commercialization. Supporting this plant could go a long way toward discovering cost savings to help
ethanol compete more effectively in the market.
ThorRenewableEnergyFacility(Cancelled)Thor Renewable Energy, Inc. (now called Carbolosic) announced in 2012 plans for an energy facility
powered by cellulosic biomass. Thor was approved for $1.7 million in tax breaks due to its claim that the
facility would constitute a capital investment of $41 million and would add 70 jobs in Palm Bay, Florida.
However, the company went through a corporate reorganization that effectively put a halt to its plans in
Palm Bay. Consequently, the tax breaks were revoked and the construction was cancelled.
VercipiaEthanolFacility(Cancelled)Four years after beginning construction plans in 2008, BP announced in 2012 that it would cancel its
plans to build a 36‐million‐gallon‐per‐year commercial cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County,
Florida. It was determined at the time that research and development and licensing were higher
priorities for the company than this new facility. The plant had been planned as the first commercial‐
scale cellulosic biofuel plant with dedicated energy grass as its feedstock. This project began as a joint
venture between BP and Verenium, but BP acquired Verenium’s biofuels business in 2010.
114 | P a g e
AppendixC2:DetailedFacilityCharacteristics
Table C‐ 1. State and Local Facility Characteristics
Facility Ownership Status City County Crops Process Output Available Testing Expertise
Years in Operation
ProductionAcres
Total Staff
Facility SQ FT
UF IFAS ‐ Gainesville
UF IFAS Active Gainesville Alachua Citrus, ornamentals, vegetables
Research Research and
extension
Life science, pathogen,
invasive species
Agriculture, life science, pathogen, invasive species
50 100 1496 974,097
UF IFAS Citrus REC
UF IFAS Active Lake Alfred Polk Citrus Research Research and
extension
Citrus Citrus disease and drought, water relationships,
productivity, breeding and genetics
97 695 134 234,000
UF IFAS Everglades
REC
UF IFAS Active Belle Glade Palm Beach Sugarcane, vegetables,
etc.
Research Research and
extension
Soil and water quality
Soil and water analysis, sugar content variety
testing, energy cane
93 784 54 131,197
UF IFAS Fort Lauderdale
REC
UF IFAS Active Davie Broward Ornamentals Research Research and
extension
Fertilizer and pesticide
Landscape research, wildlife and
conservation, turf grass, termites, aquatic weeds
management group
61 66 49 110,902
UF IFAS Gulf Coast REC ‐ Plant City
UF IFAS Active Plant City Hillsborough NA Research Research and
extension
Geomatics Geomatics 12 NA 3 NA
UF IFAS Gulf Coast REC ‐ Wimauma
UF IFAS Active Wimauma Hillsborough Fruits, vegetables, ornamentals
Research Research and
extension
Pathogen Pest and disease research,
environmental challenges, pathogen
testing on crops
11 473 91 234,520
UF IFAS Indian River
REC
UF IFAS Active Fort Pierce St. Lucie Ornamental crops, citrus, vegetables
Research Research and
extension
Citrus/vegetable quality
Biological control, water quality, crop
quality
67 1092 49 129,647
UF IFAS Mid‐Florida REC
UF IFAS Active Apopka Orange Vegetables, etc.
Research Research and
extension
Disease Development, production and protection of environmental horticulture,
vegetables and fruit crops
45 223 35 223,423
115 | P a g e
Facility Ownership Status City County Crops Process Output Available Testing Expertise
Years in Operation
ProductionAcres
Total Staff
Facility SQ FT
UF IFAS North Florida
REC ‐ Marianna
UF IFAS Active Marianna Jackson Grasses, peanuts, cotton
Research Research and
extension
Plant diagnostics,
feed efficiency
Agronomic and beef cattle; genetics and breeding; beef cattle
production
66 1289 76 126,118
UF IFAS North Florida REC ‐ Quincy
UF IFAS Active Quincy Gadsden Vegetables, fruits,
ornamentals
Research Research and
extension
Plant diagnostics,
feed efficiency
Production and management, nutrient
management, irrigation
management, weed control, wildlife management
93 1021 76 115,357
UF IFAS Range Cattle
REC
UF IFAS Active Ona Hardee Forage and field crops
Research Research and
extension
Forage sample testing
Climatic, water table, and soil influences on forage and animal production and
associated disease and insect problems;
potential use of byproducts as animal feeds; environmental
quality
73 2830 32 74,495
UF IFAS Southwest Florida REC
UF IFAS Active Immokalee Collier Citrus, vegetables
Research Research and
extension
Plant health Economics, horticulture, plant health, natural resources and environment
56 370 47 101,428
UF IFAS Tropical REC
UF IFAS Active Homestead Miami‐Dade Ornamental, vegetables, fruits, etc.
Research Research and
extension
Plant fungus, bacterium, viruses
Ornamental, vegetable, tropical‐subtropical fruit and biofuel crops, natural
resources
85 178 50 121,070
UF IFAS West Florida REC ‐
Jay
UF IFAS Active Jay Santa Rosa Ornamentals, silviculture, grasses
Research Research and
extension
Variety testing Forest ecology and silviculture,
ornamental/landscape horticulture, plant and wildlife community ecology, turfgrass science, variety
testing, weed science, bioenergy, biocontrol
68 640 24 82,213
Table C‐1. State and Local Facility Characteristics (continued)
116 | P a g e
Facility Ownership Status City County Crops Process Output Available Testing Expertise
Years in Operation
ProductionAcres
Total Staff
Facility SQ FT
UF IFAS West Florida REC ‐
Milton
UF IFAS Active Milton Santa Rosa NA Research Research and
extension
Variety testing Environmental horticulture, geomatics,
agricultural education, soil and water science
68 640 24 82,213
UF IFAS Austin Cary Memorial Forest
UF IFAS Active Gainesville Alachua Silviculture Research Research and
extension
NA Protection, silviculture, mensuration, management, economics
78 2088 NA 32,760
UF IFAS Florida Medical
Entomology Laboratory
UF IFAS Active Vero Beach Indian River NA Research Research and
extension
Mosquitos and viruses
Public health, disease transmission,
veterinary science, sanitation, mosquito control, drainage and irrigation design,
wetlands management, medical
entomology
59 30 22 35,625
UF IFAS Florida
Partnership for Water,
Agriculture & Community Sustainability ‐ Hastings
UF IFAS Active Hastings St. Johns Potatoes, cabbage, sweet
sorghum
Research Research and
extension
NA Land management, sustainable agriculture,
alternative crop production, water quality and use
91 64 NA 28,095
UF IFAS Ordway‐Swisher Biological Station
UF IFAS Active Hawthorne Putnam N/A Research Research and
extension
NA Sandhill ecosystem research, hydrology, limnology, water
quality, acidification, groundwater,
chemical budgets, nutrient limitations, aquifer recharge
6 9782 NA 25,497
UF IFAS Plant Science
Research & Education Unit ‐ Citra
UF IFAS Active Citra Marion Citrus, bioenergy crops
Research Research and
extension
Breeding, pesticides, fertilizers
Plant science 42 1045 150 215,340
Table C‐1. State and Local Facility Characteristics (continued)
117 | P a g e
Facility Ownership Status City County Crops Process Output Available Testing Expertise
Years in Operation
ProductionAcres
Total Staff
Facility SQ FT
UF IFAS Suwannee Valley
Agricultural Extension Center
UF IFAS Active Suwannee Fruits and vegetables
Research Research and
extension
None Crops, fertilizer, fumigation, greenhouse
hydroponics, manure, mulch, integrated pest
management
64 320 11 26,308
UF IFAS Tropical
Aquaculture Laboratory ‐
Ruskin
UF IFAS Active Ruskin Hillsborough None Research Research and
extension
Fish disease Tropical aquaculture, fish disease
18 6 NA 22,046
FAMU Center for
Viticulture and Small
Fruit Research
FAMU Active Tallahassee Leon Grapes Research Research and
extension
NA NA NA NA NA NA
FAMU College of Agriculture and Food Sciences
FAMU Active Tallahassee Leon NA Research Research and
extension
NA NA NA NA NA NA
USF Bio‐pharma Research
USF Active Tampa Hillsborough NA Research Research and
extension
NA NA NA NA NA NA
DACS Dundee Biological Control
Laboratory
DACS Active Dundee Polk Orange jasmine (banker plants)
Research Research and
extension
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility
Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
Active West Palm Beach Palm Beach None Research Research and
extension
NA NA NA NA NA NA
Treasure Coast
Research Park
USDA/UF/County Active Fort Pierce St. Lucie Sugar beets, etubers, hybrid peaches, grapes,
blueberries, citrus
Fermentation, etc.
Research Bioenergy viability, etc.
Food, energy, water 9 1,650 250 250,000
Table C‐1. State and Local Facility Characteristics (continued)
118 | P a g e
Table C‐ 2. Federal Facility Characteristics
Facility Type Ownership Status City County Crops Process Output Available Testing Expertise
Years in Operation
ProductionAcres
Total Staff
Facility SQ FT
KSC Space Life Sciences Lab
Research Center
NASA/Space Florida
Active Exploration Park
Brevard Oranges (fallow)
Research Research Plant pathology
Payloads, biotechnology,
microbial research, plant
research
11
120
99
109,000
USDA Center for Medical,
Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology
Research Center
USDA Active Gainesville Alachua None (insects)
Testing, experimentation
Biocontrol products
Pheromone trap and other
biocontrol
Pest behavior and biocontrol
52
10
200
325,000
USDA Invasive Plant Research Laboratory
Research Center
USDA Active Fort Lauderdale Broward None (biocont
rol agents)
Research,
breeding
Biocontrol products
Biocontrol suitability
Biocontrol agents, weeds
45
100
26
21,000
USDA Subtropical Agricultural Research
Station (Closed)
Research Center
USDA Inactive Brooksville Hernando Hay (fallow)
Research NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
USDA Subtropical Horticulture Research
Research Center
USDA Active Miami Miami‐Dade
Sugarcane, moringa, tropical/ subtropical crops
Research Improved commercial plants,
management of exotic pests,
sustainable agro‐
hydrology systems
Genetic testing
Tropical/subtropical crops,
pests, wastewater
91
200
29
32,766
USDA Sugarcane Production Research
Research Center
USDA Active Canal Point Palm Beach
Sugarcane
Research,
breeding
Knowledge, true seed
Sugar content,
physiology, disease
Cultivar development,
yield management, soil subsidence
94
146
31
37,484
USDA U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory
Research Center
USDA Active Fort Pierce St. Lucie Vegetables,
nursery crops
Research Knowledge Greening resistance
Algal turf scrubbers,
phytoremediation
14
320
160
170,000
119 | P a g e
Table C‐ 3. Private Facility Characteristics
Facility Ownership Status City County Feedstock Process Output Expertise Years in Operation
Production Acres
Total Staff
Facility SQ FT
ADAGE Gadsden Biopower
ADAGE Gadsden LLC
Canceled Gretna Gadsden Wood waste
Advanced boilers
Bioenergy Biomass ‐ NA NA NA
ADAGE Hamilton Biopower
ADAGE Hamilton LLC
Canceled Jennings Hamilton Wood waste
Advanced boilers
Bioenergy Biopower ‐ NA NA NA
Algenol Biofuels
Algenol Biofuels
Active Fort Myers Lee Algae Fermentation Ethanol and others
Carbon dioxide conversion, fermentation,
ethanol
8 36 160 80,000
ARA Engineering Science Division
Applied Research Associates
Active Panama City
Bay Carinata, pine, etc.
Crushing Jet biofuel Drop‐in fuels 8 ‐
53 NA
Bartow Ethanol
DND Active Bartow Polk Citrus Fermentation Alcohol, ethanol
Citrus processing
34 ‐ 25 80,000
Florida Biomass Energy
FB Energy Delayed Palmetto Manatee Wood/yard waste
NA Biomass energy Biomass Energy
Future NA NA NA
Gainesville Renewable Energy Center
Energy Management, Inc., BayCorp Holdings Ltd., Starwood Energy Inc., Fagen, Inc.
Active Gainesville Alachua Wood waste
Burning Biomass Energy Biomass Energy
Generation
<1 131
49 300,000
Green Circle
Bioenergy
JCE Group of Sweden
Active Cottondale Jackson Southern yellow pine,
hardwoods
Pelletization Wood pellets Biomass 6 225 100 DND
Highlands Envirofuels
United States Envirofuels,
LLC
In Progress
Lake Placid Highlands Sweet sorghum, sugar cane
Sugar‐based crop
processing
Ethanol Sugar‐based ethanol
Future 30,000
NA NA
120 | P a g e
Facility Ownership Status City County Feedstock Process Output Expertise Years in Operation
Production Acres
Total Staff
Facility SQ FT
Latt Maxcy Biofuel Farm
Latt Maxcy Corporation
In Progress
NA Osceola Sorghum NA Biofuels Biofuels Future 23,505
NA NA
Northwest Florida
Renewable Energy Center
Rentech Inc. Canceled Port St. Joe
Gulf Woody biomass
Gasification Energy Biomass ‐ NA NA NA
Renewable Spirits
Renewable Spirits, LLC
Active Winter Haven
Polk Citrus processing waste
Steam explosion, hydrolysis,
fermentation
Ethanol, limonene, pectic
fragments
Citrus 11 0 2 2,500
SRF Ethanol Plant
Southeast Renewable
Fuels
In Progress
Clewiston Hendry Sweet sorghum
Fermentation Ethanol Fermentation Future 25,000
5 DND
Stan Mayfield Biorefinery Pilot Plant
UF, Buckeye and Myriant
Active Perry Taylor Many Ethanol Extraction,
Fermentation
Ethanol Feedstock suitability
5 2
27 21,066
St. Lucie Plasma
Gasification Facility
Jacoby Group Canceled Fort Pierce St. Lucie Landfill garbage
Gasification Energy Gasification ‐ NA NA NA
Thor Renewable Energy Facility
Thor Renewable Energy Inc.
Canceled Melbourne Brevard Cellulosics biomass
NA Energy Biomass ‐ NA NA NA
Vercipia Ethanol Facility
BP Canceled Brighton Highlands Energy cane
NA Ethanol Ethanol ‐ NA NA NA
Table C‐3. Private Facility Characteristics (continued)
121 | P a g e
AppendixD:Acknowledgements
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Patrick Ahlm Algenol Biofuels Assistant Director, Government and Regulatory Affairs
x x
Michael Aller Space Coast Energy Consortium
Executive Directorx
x
Fredy Altpeter University of Florida ‐ IFAS
Professor
Calvin Arnold Southwest FL REC) Laboratory Director x
J.D. Arthington Range Cattle Research & Education Center ‐ Milton (IFAS)
Center Director
x
Michelle Atkinson US/IFAS Extension Agent x
Lisa Baete USDA ARS Realty Specialist/Real Property Leasing Officer
x
Canan Balaban FL Energy Systems Consortium
Assoc. Directorx
Liz Baldwin USDA U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory
Research Leader
Ken Barton Florida Peanut Producers Association
Executive Director
x
x
Fitzroy "Roy" Beckford
Lee County Extension (IFAS)
County Extension Director
Alan Berry Novozymes Biochemicals Spokesman x
Jason Blake Novozymes Biofuels Spokesman (Cellulosic)
x
Colin Bletsky Novozymes North America Inc.
Director, Global Marketing & Business Development
x x x x
Ben Bolusky Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscape Association
CEO
x
x
Brian Boman x
Larry Boskin Plant Food Systems
Del Bottcher SWET, Inc President x
Drion Boucias University of Florida
Professor, Insect Pathology
x
Nathan S. Boyd Gulf Coast REC Assistant Professor, Horticultural Sciences
x
James A. Boyer Plant Science Research and Education Unit (IFAS)
Coordinator of Research Programs
x
Denise Bradley Teva Pharmaceuticals
Marketing Manager
x
Dr. Jacque Breman Land O Lakes (Minnesota)
x
Reggie Brown Florida Tomato Committee
Manager
x
x
Tom Brown Florida Food Products
x
122 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Kimberly Browne IFAS Budget Director x
David Brushwood UF College of Pharmacy
Professor
x
John Brushwood Gainesville Renewable Energy Center
Director of Communicationsx
Jackie Burns Citrus Research and Education Center
Center Director
x
Lyle Buss University of Florida ‐ Insect ID Lab
Insect ID Lab Manager
x
Dr. Randy Cameron U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory (USDA‐ARS)
Research Biologist
x x
Ted Campbell Florida Strawberry Growers Association
Executive Director
x
Trey Carlson NASA Center Planning and Development Office
x x x x
David Carson Chemical Dynamics Owner x
Juli Carter IFAS Budget & Finance
x
Ted Center USDA Invasive Plant Research Laboratory
Research Leader
x
R Charaduttan BioProdex CEO x
Chadwick C Chase USDA ‐ Subtropical Agricultural Research Station
Acting Research Leader
x
Ashvini Chauhan FAMU, ESI Assoc. Prof
Jacob Chung UF Mechanical Engineering
Progress Energy Professorx
Desiree Cimino St. Lucie County ‐ Purchasing Division
Purchasing Manager
x
Alicia Clancy West Central Co‐op Communications Director x x
Michael Cole U.S. Energy Information Administration
Biofuels Resources expertx
Joe Collins Lykes Bros, Inc. x x
Daniel Colvin Plant Science Research and Education Unit (IFAS)
Director of Research
x
Nick Comerford North Florida Research and Education Center ‐ Quincy (IFAS)
Center Director
x
Jack Comstock Sugarcane Production Research (USDA)
Research Plant Pathologistx
Michelle Cooper Florida Dairy Farmers
CEO
x
Edward N. Coppola Applied Research Associates
Principal Engineer, Fuels Program
x
Bill Cox Thor Renewable / Carbolosic
x
Hood Craddock Latt Maxcy x
123 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Patrick Crampton Agrisoma Biosciences
VP, Business and Product Development
x
Steve Csonka CAAFI Executive Director x
Jim Cuda University of Florida
Professor, Aquatic Insects, Weeds
x
Dan Cummings INEOS Bio USA x
Kristen Delinsky PhRMA Unknown (she is in the 'Scientific & Regulatory' area)
x
Tom Deponty AREVA (regarding ADAGE)
Director of Government Affairs
x
Ben DeVries Treasure Coast Research Park
Executive Directorx
Bon Dewitt University of Florida
Associate Professor
x
Page Donnelly Novozymes North America Inc.
Communications Managerx x x x
David Duda Duda & Sons x x
Mark Dunlop Speedling
James Dyer Gulf Coast REC ‐ Plant City (IFAS)
Professor
x
Barney Ealon Florida Crystals x
Steve Edmonds Green Oil Solutions, Inc.
Director of Industry Development
x
Nael El‐Hout BP Biofuels North America
Senior Agronomistx
Monica Elliot Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center
Interim Center Co‐Director
x
Larry Elliott Carollo Eng x
Amr Abd Elrahman University of Florida
Associate Professor
x
Nancy Epsky Subtropical Horticulture Research (USDA)
Acting Research Leader
x x x x
John Erickson UF x x
Edward 'Gilly' Evans UF IFAS ‐ Tropical REC, Homestead
Assistant Professor and Associate Director, University of Florida, Center for Tropical Agriculture
x
Tim Eves NTE Solutions Principal x
Marilyn Exum Florida Chemical x
Rob Ferl UF
x
Jorge Fernandez‐Cornejo
USDA Economic Research Service (ERS)
Biotechnology Expert
x
Henry Frank Argonide Corp. VP, Sales x
Howard Frank University of Florida
Expert on Bromeliad weevils
x
David Fraser US Potato Board VP, Industry Communications & Policy
Dean Gabriel IP Genetics President x
Tony Gannon Space Florida Director, Research & Project Development
x
124 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Renee Garifi CASIS
x
Richard Gaskalla FDACS DPI Director x
Ruth Gaumond American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS)
Managing Editorx
Rob Gilbert UF IFAS Agronomy Department Chair, UF IFAS (formerly at Everglades REC, recently relocated to Gainesville)
x
John Gilette SLC School Board (Greentech Ag Facility)
Janice Gilley UWF x
Karen Gillis UF Environmental Health & Safety
Biosafety Coordinator
x
Susan Glickman Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Action Fund
Florida Directorx
Stephen Gran Hillsborough County Extension Center (IFAS)
County Extension Director
Dennis J. Gray UF IFAS Mid‐Florida REC
Professor/Development Biologist
x
Earl Griffin USDA Administration x
Doug Gruendel NASA ‐ Kennedy Space Center
x
Jim Handley Florida Cattlemen's Association
Executive VP
x
John Harper 3 Rivers RS&D Project Manager x
John Harper Resource Conservation and Development Council
Project Manager
x
Dave Harrelson St Joe Company Forester x
Mary Hartney Florida Fertilizer and Agrichemical Association
President
x
Matt Hartwig BP Alternative Energy
Spokesmanx
Paulo Haula Florida Supplement Sales Director x
John Hayes UF x
Jan Henderson Alliance Dairies x
x
Hillburn Hillestad Jacoby Group President x
Bob Hochmuth Suwannee Valley Agricultural Extension Center (IFAS)
Multi County Extension Agent
x
Ray Hodges Southeast Milk x x
Joe Hodges The Andersons, Inc. VP Southern Region
x
Alan Hodges UF x x
Angie Hoffnagle Xcelience Marketing Manager x
Marjorie Hoy UF Entomology and Nematology Department
Eminent Scholar
x
125 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Yuch Hsieh FAMU Professor x
Robert Hubbard National Aeronautics and Space Administration Center
Business Development Manager
x
Kathy Hughes DEO x
Karin Hyler Gainesville Renewable Energy Center
Project Administrator
x
Jake Iannarelli Florida Biologix x
Lonnie Ingram Stan Mayfield Biorefinery
Director/Distinguished Professor
x x
Drew Jackson B.P. Engineer x
Keri Jacobs Iowa State Univ. Asst. Professor x
Marshall Jacobson Plum Creek ‐ Athens, GA Office
x
Joseph Jones Noven Pharmaceuticals
Marketing Manager
x
Mark Kann Plant Science Research and Education Unit (IFAS)
Coordinator of Research
x
Timothy Kiely EPA Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD)
Branch Chief
x
Matthew Kowalski Novozymes Global Biocontrol Marketing Manager
x
Bradley Krohn United States Envirofuels, LLC
Presidentx x
David Kuhn USDA ARS ‐ Subtropical Horticulture Research Station
Molecular Biologist
x
Jim Kuzma Space Florida Sr. VP, CPP x x x
Dan Lamontagne Plum Creek Manager, bioenergy x
Jim Lane Ed. Biofuels Digest x
Bill Lear UF Professor x
Lynn LeBeck Association of Natural Bio‐control Producers (ANBP)
Executive Director
x
Stephen Leong Center for Viticulture Science and Small Fruit Research ‐ FAMU
Director
x
Norm Leppla UF IFAS Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
IPM Director
x
Kenneth Linthicum Ctr for Medical, Agric. and Vet. Entomology (USDA)
Center Director
x
Yanxia Liu UF College of Pharmacy
x
Matthew Livingston Novozymes Water Treatment Spokesman
x
Erick Lutt Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
x
126 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Charles Lykes Lykes Bros, Inc. x
Martin Main UF/IFAS Extension Administration
Associate Dean/Associate Director
x
Virginia Mauldin UF IFAS Program Assistant for Dr. Jack M. Payne
x
Odemari Mbuya FAMU College of Agriculture and Food Sciences
Professorx
x x
Michael McAdams Advanced Biofuels Association
x
Peter McClure Evans Properties x x x x
Meade McDonald Syngenta x
Betsy McGill Turfgrass Producers of Florida
Executive Director
x
James Meade Agricultural Fuels Corp.
x
Ronald E. Meissen Baxter Healthcare Corporation
Sr. Director, Sustainability
x
Rick Melchiori Becker Holding Corporation
Frank Miele Magna‐Bon Agricultural Control Solutions
Owner and president
x
Pat Minogue North Florida REC (IFAS)
Extension Specialist, Forestry/Assistant Professor
x
Richard Moyroud Mesozoic Landscapes, Inc.
Sheri Munn IFAS Facilities Planning & Operations
Assistant Director Administration
x
Jim Muntz Bartow Ethanol VP Operationsx x
Morten Neraas Green Circle Bioenergy
President and CEOx
Wayne Nicholson UF IFAS ‐ Dept. of Microbiology and Cell Science
Professor
x
Ismael U. Nieves Stan Mayfield Biorefinery
Project Director/Chief Process Engineer
x x
Larry Novey OPPAGA Chief Analyst x
Gregg S. Nuessly Everglades Research and Education Center
Interim Center Directorx
Godfrey Nurse FAMU Farm Manager x x
Randy Oberlander G.P. Solutions Technical Representative
Eric Olsen Hopping Green and Sams
x
Clay Olson UF/IFAS Taylor County Extension
County Extension Director (Taylor County)
Kome Onokipse FAMU x x x x x
Lance Osborne Mid‐Florida Research and Education Center (IFAS)
Interim Center Director
x
Chris Paulk Muscadine Products Corp
x
James Payne David Wright
Deseret Ranches of Florida
127 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Dan Pellowitz Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County
Managing Directorx
Jorge Pena Tropical REC Professor, Entomology and Nematology
x
Aaron Pepper Southeast Renewable Fuels
Chief Executive Officerx
Gary Peter x x
George Philippidis x
Alan Phillips Arizona Chemical
Edward Phlips
Dallas Piscoppo Gowan Co x
Angela Prioleau USDA x
Pratap Pullammanappallil
UF x
Angela Quinata USDA‐ARS Administrative Officer x
Anthony Radich U.S. Energy Information Administration
Biodiesel/Ethanol expertx
David Read FDEP x
Jack Rechcigl Gulf Coast REC (IFAS)
Center Director
x
x
Chuck Red Applied Research Associates
Vice President, Fuels Development
x
Kinfe Redde FAMU College of Pharmacy
x
Elizabeth Richard Wyle Science, Technology and Engineering
Senior Strategist
x
Mike Rinck AG 3, Inc
Mike Roberts CASIS x
Joan Robertson Wyle Science, Technology and Engineering
x
Jack Rogers Novozymes Biofuels Spokesman (Corn) x
Eric Rohrig DACS/DPI Biological Scientist x
Greg Rood Biomass Processing Technology Inc/LS9 Properties Inc
Vice President of Operations
x
Peter Rosholm Novozymes BioPharma Spokesman x
Diane Rowland Prof Agronomy Department, UF
Joe Sagues Stan Mayfield Biorefinery
Director of Operationsx x
Hardev Sandhu Everglades Research and Education Center
Assistant Professorx
Charles Saunders INEOS Bio USA x
Peter Schnebly Schnebly Redland's Winery
x
Richard M. Schroeder BioResource Management, Inc.
Presidentx
Shawn Semones Novozymes x
Ali Shaban Applied Research Associates
x
Sanjay Shukla UF Immokolee Research and Educ Center
x
128 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Jose R Sifontes Sigarca BioEnergy Plant
x
Tony Silva Vecenergy Director, ,Biodiesel Business Development and Marketing
x
Thomas Smart Smart Fuels Florida, LLC
Presidentx
Scot Smith University of Florida
Professor
x
Luther Smith American Society of Agronomy
Director of Certification
Kelly Smith Pasteuria BioScience
Head
x
Trevor Smith FDACS Bureau Chief ‐Methods Development & Biological Control
x
Hugh A. Smith Gulf Coast REC Assistant Professor, Entomology
x
Jim Snively Southern Gardens Citrus
VP Grove Operations x
Lynn Sollenberger University of Florida
Professor and Associate Chair, Agronomy Dept.
Mike Sparks Florida Citrus Mutual
Executive VP and CEO
x
x
Craig Stanley Gulf Coast REC x
Phil Stansly Southwest Florida Research and Education Center (IFAS)
Interim Center Director
Jason Stem Supersweet Corn Council
x
Scott Stevenson Renewable Spirits, LLC
Presidentx x
Peter Stoffella Indian River Research and Education Center (IFAS)
Center Director
x
Randy Strode AgriStarts President x
Mike Stuart Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association
President
x
Robin Stuart FDACS DPI Biological Scientist IV x
Dr. Gary Stutte NASA/Dynamac Corporation
Principal Investigator (Regenerative Life Support Feasibility)
x
Gary Stutte FDACS DPI Biological Scientist x
Deb Swim Working with Florida Municipal Electric Association
x
George Szczepanski Produce Marketing Association (PMA)
Sales, Business Development
x
x
Walter Tabachnik Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory
Center Director
x
Robert Taylor FAMU, College of Agriculture and Food Sciences
Dean
129 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Scott Taylor Florida Partnership for Water, Agriculture & Community Sustainability
Center Director
x
Peter Teal Subtropical Horticulture Research (USDA)
Research Leader
x
Dean Thome Novozymes Global Regulatory Manager, BioAg
x x x x
Philip Tipping Invasive Plant Research Laboratory (USDA)
Research Entomologist
x
Frank Tipton IFAS Facilities Planning & Operations
Coordinator, Facilities
x
Bryan Unruh West Florida Research & Education Center ‐ Jay (IFAS)
Associate Center Director
x
Gary E. Vallad Gulf Coast REC Associate Professor, Plant Pathology
x
Ann Vanek‐Dasovich Public Affairs, Governmental Relations and Media Consultant
x
Joel Velasco Amyris, Inc Sr. VP x
Wagner Vendrame Tropical Research & Education Center
Professorx
x
Joe Vendramini UF IFAS Range Cattle REC
Forage Specialistx
Wil Vermerris Prof x
Christine Waddill Tropical Research and Education Center (IFAS)
Center Directorx x
x
John Wakefield EcoAsset Solutions (Lykes Bros.)
Presidentx
Amy Walker Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
x
Craig Watson Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory (IFAS)
Center Director
x
Ryan Weston Florida Sugar Cane League
Executive Vice Presidentx
Ray Wheeler NASA Plant Physiologist x
Gregory Wheeler USDA Invasive Plant Research Laboratory
Research Entomologist
x
Bob Whitaker Produce Marketing Association (PMA)
Chief of Science and Technology
x
Tim White UF School of Forest & Resource Conservation (IFAS)
Director
x
Ann Wilkie Prof Biology UF x
130 | P a g e
Individual Company Title Bio‐
Energy Bio‐Chem
Bio‐Control
Bio‐Pharma Other
Gary Willer Calyso Energy Holding (Indiantown Cogeneration L.P.)
x
David Wright Deseret Ranches of Florida
x
x
David Wright IFAS x
Paul Yelvington Mainstream Engineering Corporation
x
Karen Zamani Florida Crystals x
Shufeng Zhou USF College of Pharmacy
Director of Research
x
131 | P a g e
AppendixE:WorksCited
Aliyu, A.O., Nwaedozie, J.M., Adams, Ahmed. (2013). Quality Paramters of Biodiesel Produced from
Locally Sourced Moringa Oleifera and Citrullus Colocynthis L. Seeds Found in Kaduna, Nigeria.
International Research Journal of Pure & Applied Chemistry, 3(4), 377‐390.
Anstiss. N.d. Moringa: “The Miracle Tree” – Mozambique. Retrieved from
http://anstiss.com/wp‐content/uploads/Moringa_Tree.pdf
Arnold, C.E., Crocker, T.E. n.d. Pecan Production in Florida. Retrieved from UF IFAS
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV20000.pdf
Battelle. (2012). Bio State Bioscience Industry Development.
Baucum, L.E., Rice, R.W., Schueneman, T.J. n.d. An Overview of Florida Sugarcane. Retrieved from
UF IFAS http://hendry.ifas.ufl.edu/pdfs/overview_of_florida_sugarcane.pdf
Beckford, Roy. N.d. Fundamentals of Producing Jatropha curcas. Retrieved from `
http://www.Jatropha.pro/
Beckford, Roy. N.d. Jatropha curcas: From Potential to Kinetic Energy. Retrieved from UF IFAS
http://lee.ifas.ufl.edu/AgNatRes/JatrophaInfo/Jatropha_curcas_potential_or_kinetic.pdf
Beckford, Roy. N.d. So you wanna Grow Jatropha? Retrieved from UF IFAS Extension
http://lee.ifas.ufl.edu/AgNatRes/Pubs/SoyouwannagrowJatropha.pdf
Belay, Yemisrach Zewdu. (2010). Plant Regeneration from Anther Culture of Four Varieties of Ethiopian
Mustard (Brassica Carinata A.Braun). Retrieved from
http://etd.aau.edu.et/
Bello, E.I., Anjorin, S.A., Agge, M. n.d. Production of Biodiesel from oFluted Pumpkin (Telfairia
Occidentalis Hook F.) sedes Oil. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering,
2.1. Retrieved from http://vixra.org/pdf/1208.0173v1.pdf
Berglund, Duane R. n.d. Crops Vary in Their Tolerance to Frost. Retrieve3d from North Dakota State
University http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/
Berguson, Bill. (2010). Development of Hybrid Popla r for Commercial Production in the United States:
The Pacific Northwest and Minnesota Experience. Sustainable Alternative Fuel Feedstock
Opportunities, Challenges and Roadmaps for Six U.S. Regions. Retrieved from
http://www.swcs.org/
Berti, Marisol T. and Schneither, A.A. (1993). Calendula. Preliminary Agronomic Evaluation of New Crops
for North Dakota. Retrieved from https://www.hort.purdue.edu/
Biomass Magazine. (2013). Hawaii Invests in Papaya‐to‐Biofuel Project. Retrieved from
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/8860/hawaii‐invests‐in‐papaya‐to‐biofuel‐project
Bitzer, Morris, Pfeiffer, Todd. (2013). Sweet Sorghum for Syrup. Retrieved from UK Cooperative
Extension http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CCD/introsheets/swsorghumintro.pdf
Breitenbeck, Gary A. (2008). Chinese Tallow Trees a Potential Bioenergy Crop for Louisiana.
Retrieved from LSU Ag Center http://www.lsuagcenter.com/
Broschat, Timothy K., Crane, Jonathan H. (2011). The Coconut Palm in Florida. Retrieved from UF IFAS
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/mg043
Carinata Production: A Guide to Best Management Practices. (2011). Retrieved from Agrisoma
132 | P a g e
http://agrisoma.com/images/pdfs/CarinataProductionGuide.pdf
Carney, Edward. Bamboo: Biofuel For The Future. (2011). Retrieved from Green Earth News
http://blog.greenearthbamboo.com/
Cattanach, A.W., Dexter, A.G., Oplinger, E.S. n.d. Sugarbeets. Alternative Field Crops Manual.
Retrieved from https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/sugarbeet.html
Chellemi, Dan O., von Wedel, Randall, Turechek, William W., Adkins, Scott. (2009). Integrating
Sunflower Oil Seed Crops into Florida Horticultural Production Systems. Proc. Fla. State
Hort. Soc., 122, 289‐294. Retrieved from http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/41556/PDF
Collingridge, Robert‐James. n.d. UK Daffodil Production. Daffodil. Retrieved from
http://www.flowerexperts.com/daffodil_facts.asp
Cultivation of Algae in Open Ponds. n.d. Retrieved from Oilgae
http://www.oilgae.com/algae/cult/op/op.html
Davis, Christopher. Science Paper: Overharvesting of Brazil Nuts Leading to Fewer Trees. (2003). UF
News Retrieved from http://news.ufl.edu/2003/12/18/brazil‐nuts/
Demeritt, Jr., Maurice E. n.d. Poplar Hybrids. Retrieved from
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/populus/populus.htm
Dickens, David E., Jackson, Ben. (2011). Short Rotation Woody Crops Yield Estimates for Georgia
Growers. Retrieved from http://www.warnell.uga.edu/
Dittmar, Peter, Stall, William. (2013). Weed Management in Sweet Potato. Retrieved from
UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wg039
Duke, James A. (1983). Handbook of Energy Crops. Retrieved from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/
Erickson, John, Rainbolt, Curtis, Newman, Yoana, Sollenberger, Lynn, Helsel, Zane.
(2012). Production of Miscanthus x gaganteus for Biofuel. Retrieved from
UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag297
Fisher, Kevin. Terpenes Replacing BTEX in Oil Field. American Oil
& Gas Reporter. August 2013.
Fleenor, Richard A. (2011). Plant Guide for Camelina (Camelina Sativa). Retrieved from USDA‐Natural
Resources Conservation Service http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_casa2.pdf
Friedman, Melissa H., Andreu, Michael G., Quintana, Heather V., McKenzie, Mary. (2010). Ricinus
Communis, Castor Bean. Retrieved from UF IFAS https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fr306
Gardner, John C., Quinn, Nigel W.T., Van Gerpen, Jon, Simonpietri, Joelle. (2010). Oilseed and Algal Oils
as Biofuel Feedstockss. [Workshop]. Hosted by the Soil and Water Conservation Society. Atlanta,
GA.
Gibson, Lance, Benson, Garren. (2002). Origin, History, and Uses of Oat (Avena sativa) and Wheat
(Triticum aestivum). Retrieved from
http://agron‐www.agron.iastate.edu/Courses/agron212/readings/oat_wheat_history.htm
Gilman, Edward F., Howe, Teresa. n.d. Calendula Officinalis Calendula, Pot Marigold. Retrieved from UF
IFAS Extension http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FP/FP08700.pdf
Gilman, Edward F., Watson, Dennis G. (1994). Populus alba White Poplar. Retrieved from US Forest
Service http://hort.ufl.edu/database/documents/pdf/tree_fact_sheets/popalba.pdf
Gilman, Edward F., Watson, Dennis G. (2006). Taxus baccata: English Yew. Retrieved from
UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/st624
133 | P a g e
Gonzalez, Karrie. NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2014). Marketing
North Carolina Sweet Potatoes. Retrieved from
http://www.ncagr.gov/markets/mktnews/swpotsum.pdf
Growing Biodiesel Fuel and Animal Feed with Saline Irrigation. N.d. Retrieved from University of
Delaware
https://www.ceoe.udel.edu/
Growing Hazelnuts for Biofuel Production. (2014). Retrieved from eXtension
http://www.extension.org/
Hecker, Erich. (1968). Cocarcinogenic Principles from the Seed Oil of Croton tiglium and from Other
Euphorbiaceae. Cancer Research, 28, 2338‐2348.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/28/11/2338.full.pdf
Herkes, John, Thompson, Joe, Van Gerpen, Jon. (2011). Warm Climate Feedstocks for Biodiesel.
Retrieved from eXtension http://www.extension.org/
Hughes, Tim, Lowe, Larry, Stringer, Jeff. (2012). Woody Biomass for Energy. Retrieved from UK
Cooperative Extension Service http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CCD/introsheets/woodybiomass.pdf
International Land Development Consultants Ltd. (1981). Agricultural Compendiumfor Rural
Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co.
Jamboonsri, Watchareewan. (2010). Improvement of New Oil Crops for Kentucky. University of Kentucky
Doctoral Dissertations. Retrieved from http://uknowledge.uky.edu
Kummer, Chris, Philips, Tim. (2012). Chia. Retrieved from UK Cooperaative Extension Service
http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CCD/introsheets/chia.pdf
Lang, T.A., Daroub, S.H., Lentini, R.S. n.d. Water Management for Florida Sugarcane Production.
Retrieved from UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/SC/SC03100.pdf
Langeland, K.A. (2012). Natural Area Weeds: Chinese Tallow (Sapium sebiferum L.)
Retrieved from UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag148
Leppla, Norm. Commercial Biological Control [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu/Education_Extension/Presentations.shtml
MacDonald, Greg, Sellers, Brent, Langeland, Ken. (2008). Tung Oil Tree. Invasive Species
Management Plans for Florida. Retrieved from http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/31
Marois, Jim, Wright, David. (2011). Camelina Production in Florida. Retrieved from UF IFAS
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag350
McLaughlin, John, Balerdi, Carlos, Crane, Jonathan. (2008). Cashew‐Apple Fruit Growing in the Florida
Home Landscape. Retrieved from UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs377
Monge, Juan J., Ribera, Luis A., Landivar, Juan A., Jifon, John L., da Silva, Jorge A. n.d. Economics and Life‐
Cycle Analysis of Lignocellulosic Biofuel Production from Energy Cane. Retrieved from Texas
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/energysummit/docs/trk4‐economic.pdf
Morey, Darrell D., Chapman, W.H., Earhart, R.W. (1953). Growing Oats in Florida. Retrieved from
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026557/00001
Mori, Scott A. (1992). The Brazil Nut Industry – Past, Present, and Future. Retrieved from
http://www.nybg.org/
Mossler, Mark. (2008). Florida Crop/Pest Profile: Sugarcane. Retrieved from UF IFAS
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_pi207
134 | P a g e
Mossler, Mark A., Crane, Jonathan. (2002). Florida Crop/Pest Management Profile: Papaya.
Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi053
Murphy, Richard J., Littlewood, Jade, Wang, Lei, Turnbull, Colin. (2013). Techno‐Economic Potential of
Bioethanol from Bamboo in China. Biotechnology for Biofuels (6.173)
http://www.biotechnologyforbiofuels.com/content/6/1/173
Nahar, Kamrun, Ozores‐Hampton, Monica. (2011). Jatropha: An Alternative Substitute to Fossil
Fuel. Retrieved from UF IFAS Extension https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs1193
Newman, Yoana, Williams, Mary J., Helsel, Zane, Vendramini, Joao. (2014). Production of
Biofuel Crops in Florida: Switchgrass. Retrieved from UF IFAS
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag296
Noland, Thomas L., Abou‐Zaid, Mamdouh. (2008). Canada Yew: Developing a Value‐Added Crop for
Northern Ontario. Retrieved from Ontario Forest Research Institute
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/
Oelke, E.A., Oplinger, E.S., Teynor, T.M., Putnam, D.H., Doll, J.D., Kelling, K.A., Durgan, B.R., Noetzel,
D.M. n.d. Safflower. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/safflower.html
Olsen, Jeff. (2013). Growing Hazelnuts in the Pacific Northwest. Retrieved from OSU Extension Service
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/43804/em9072.pdf
Oplinger, E.S., Hardman, L.L., Gritton, E.T., Doll, J.D., Kelling, K.A. n.d. Canola (Rapeseed). Alternative
Field Crops Manual. Retrieved from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/canola.html
Oplinger, E.S., Oelke, E.A., Kaminski, A.R., Combs, S.M., Doll, J.D., Schuler, R.T. (1997). Castorbeans.
Alternative Field Crops Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/castor.html
Oplinger, E.S., Putnam, D.H., Kaminski, A.R., Hanson, C.V., Oelke, E.A., Schulte, E.E., Doll, J.D.
n.d. Sesame. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/sesame.html
Phippen, Winthrop B. (2007). Production Variables Affecting Follicle and Biomass Development in
Common Milkweed. Retrieved from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/
Progress on the Development of Chia, Salvia Hispanica L., as a New Grain Crop for KY. n.d.
Retrieved from http://www.kysmallgrains.org/research/results/2012‐chia.pdf
Puangsri, T., Abdulkarim, S.M, Ghazali, H.M. (2004). Properties of Carica Papaya L. (Papaya)
Seed Oil Following Extractions Using Solvent and Aqueous Enzymatic Methods.
Retrieved from http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/13006705.pdf
Putnam, D.H., Budin, J.T., Field, L.A., Breene, W.M. (1993). Camelina: A Promising Low‐Input Oilseed.
New Crops. Retrieved from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/
Putnam, D.H., Oplinger, E.S., Hardman, L.L., Doll, J.D. n.d. Lupine. Alternative Field Crops Manual.
Retrieved from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html
Putnam, D.H., Oplinger, E.S., Hicks, D.R., Durgan, B.R., Noetzel, D.M., Meronuck, R.A., Doll, J.D.,
Schulte, E.E. n.d. Sunflower. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/sunflower.html
Pyter, Rich, Voigt, Tom, Heaton, Emily, Dohleman, Frank, Long, Steve. (2007). Giant Miscanthus: Biomass
Crop for Illinois. Issues in New Crops and New Uses. Retrieved from
135 | P a g e
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu07/pdfs/long39‐42.pdf
Rahmani, Mohammad, Hodges, Alan W. (2009). Economic Impacts of the Florida Citrus Industry in
2007–08. FE802, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Rainbolt, Curtis, Gilbert, Robert. N.d. Production of Biofuel Crops in Florida: Sugarcane/Energycane
Retrieved from UF IFAS Extension http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AG/AG30300.pdf
Rains, Glen C., Cundiff, John S., Welbaum, Gregory E. (1993). Sweet Sorghum for a Piedmont Ethanol
Industry. New Crops, 394‐399. Retrieved from
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1993/v2‐394.html
Ramos, T.B., Simunek, J., Goncalves, M.C., Martins, J.C., Prazeres, A., Pereira, L.S. (2012). Two‐
Dimensional Modeling of Water and Nitrogen Fate from Sweet Sorghum Irrigated with
Fresh and Blended Saline Waters. Agricultural Water Management 111, 87‐104.
Retrieved from http://www.pc‐progress.com/Documents/Jirka/Ramos_et_al_AWM_2012.pdf
Research and Markets. (2014). “Concise Analysis of the International Green Solvents & Bio Solvents
Market – Forecasts to 2018.”
Richard Jr., Ed, Tew, Thomas, Cobill, Robert, Hale, Anna. n.d. Sugar/Energy Canes as Feedstocks for the
Biofuels Industry. Retrieved from http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/
Rockwood, Donald L., Rudie, Alan W., Winandy, Jerrold E. (2008). Energy Product Options for
Eucalyptus Species Grown as Short Rotation Woody Crops. International
Journal of Molecular Sciences, 9.8, 1361‐1378.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2635734/
Ryan‐Bohac, Janice. N.d. Bridging the Gap for Commercialization of the Energy Tuber as an
Advanced Biofuel Crop for Corn Ethanol Refineries. Retrieved from
http://www.berkeleybioeconomy.com/wp‐content/uploads//2012/04/Bohac_Bridging.pdf
Schill, Susanne Retka. (2007). The Saltwater Soybean. Retrieved from Biodiesel Magazine
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/articles/1913/the‐saltwater‐soybean
SESVanderHave. N.d. How to Grow Tropical Suguar Beet. Retrieved from
http://www.sesvanderhave.com/
Silip, James Jupikely, Tambunan, Armansyah H., Hambali, Herliza, Surahman, Memen. (2010).
Lifecycle Duration and Maturity Heterogeneity of Jatropha curcas Linn.
Journal of Sustainable Development, 3.2.
Retrieved from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/viewFile/5237/5101
Stephens, James M. (2009). Cilantro – Coriandrum sativum L. Retrieved from UF IFAS
https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/mv051
Stephens, James M. (2009). Jojoba – Simmondsia chinensis (Link) S.
Retrieved from UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/mv083
Stephens, James M. (2009). Mustard Collard – Brassica Carinata L. Retrieved from UF IFAS
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/mv096
Stevens, Gene. (2014). Sweet sorghum for Biofuel Production. Retrieved from eXtension
http://www.extension.org/pages/26634/sweet‐sorghum‐for‐biofuel‐production#.U0LpJldnul8
Stevens, Michelle. N.d. Common Milkweed. Plant Guide. Retrieved from
https://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/cs_assy.pdf
136 | P a g e
Study Shows Bamboo Ethanol in China Technically and Economically Feasible, Cost‐Competitive with
Gasoline. (2013). Retrieved from Green Car Congress
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/12/20131201.html
Tarabet, Lyes, Loubar, Khaled, Lounici, Mohand Said, Hanchi, Samir, Tazerout, Mohand. (2012).
Eucalyptus biodiesel as an Alternative to Diesel Fuel: Preparation and Tests on DI
Diesel Engine. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology,
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2012/235485/
Undersander, D.J., Oelke, E.A., Kaminski, A.R., Doll, J.D., Putnam, D.H., Combs, S.M., Hanson, C.V.
n.d. Jojoba. Alternative Field Crops Manual.
Retrieved from http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/jojoba.html
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2006). The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from
Sugar in the United States. Retrieved from
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/ethanol_fromsugar_july06.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy. Drop‐In Biofuels. Retrieved from
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/emerging_dropin_biofuels.html
Vendrame, Wagner. N.d. Jatropha as an alternative biofuel: Hope or Hype? Retrieved from
http://biogas.ifas.ufl.edu/BESTS/files/Vendrame.pdf
Vermerris, Wilfred, Erickson, John, Wright, David, Newman, Yoana, Rainbolt, Curtis.
(2011). Production of Biofuel Crops in Florida: Sweet Sorghum. Retrieved from
UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag298
Webb, S.E. (2013). Insect Management for Sweet Potatoes. Retrieved from UF IFAS
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ig159
Wells, Lenny, Hudson, Will, Brock, Jason. (2011). Pecan Trees for the Home or Backyard Orchard.
Retrieved from University of Georgia
http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk_id=7773
Wright, D.L., Rich, J.R., Marois, J.J., Sprenkel, R.K., Ferrell, J.A. (2011). Soybean Production in Florida.
Retrieved from UF IFAS http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag185
Zhuang, Qianlai, Qin Zhangcai, Chen, Min. (2013). Biofuel, Land and Water: Maize, Switchgrass
Or Miscanthus? Environmental Research Letters 8
Retrieved from http://www.eaps.purdue.edu/research/ebdl/pdfs/2013‐pub‐3.pdf
Contact: Valerie Seidel, President
Phone: 407-629-2185 x 104
Prepared For:
Florida Department Of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Division Of Administration
600 South Calhoun Street Suite 251
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650