harvestable biomass of corn and sunflower, experiences in vojvodina

8/11/2019 Harvestable biomass of corn and sunflower, experiences in Vojvodina

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/harvestable-biomass-of-corn-and-sunflower-experiences-in-vojvodina 1/15

1

Harvestable biomass of corn and sunflower,experiences in Vojvodina



2

1. INTRODUCTION

Crop residues, as non food and non feed biomass, becomedesirable energy source, feedstock for biofuels.

The open questions are:

1. Realistic potentials.2. Impact of residues offtake on soil characteristics, fertility and other

environmental effects.3. Supply security.

The first step should be to define, quantify, harvestable biomass, and,related to this, on field remained biomass.

This will be the background for all other assessments related to mentionedproblems.



3

A complexity of decomposition and incorporation mechanism of harvestresidues in the form of organic carbon in the soil is consequence of manyparameters. For example, decomposition returns to the atmosphere mostof the C added in the form of harvest residues into the soil - only a verysmall fraction becomes humus (Stockmann et al., 2013).

Values of removed nutrients have been assessed as well. The range is4.64 to 30 US$/Mg of stover DM (Cook and Shinners, 2011; Zych, 2008;

Avila-Segura et al., 2011). Maybe the most realistic costs are given byJohnson et al. (2010), 18.1, 17.6 and 11.7 US$/Mg for beneath-ear stover,above-ear stover and cobs, respectively. In one article (Cook and Shinners,2011), SOM removal has been estimated, 130 kg/Mg and price 0.9 US$/Mgof stover DM. The impact of stover removal on erosion value expressed as

15 US$/Mg. This value should be further studied, considering amount ofnitrogen that can be used by following crops. Reduction of usable nitrogencan influence the nutrients value considerably.



4

It has been concluded that the backgrounds for the assessment of cropresidues potentials, harvestable mass, of major field crops are missing, as

well as seasonal drought influence on it. Backgrounds for assessment ofcrop residues removal on nutrients and SOM value and soil protection oferosion are missing as well. The main objective of the investigation was todefine these backgrounds for the agricultural region of Serbia, Vojvodina.

The specific objectives were:

1. To define potentials, harvestable amount, in dependence of seasonalweather conditions, applied for two years, with dry, recently common forthe region, and extremely dry conditions.

2. To quantify above ground residues remained on the field, after biomassremoval and evaluate potentials for erosion protection.

3. To create backgrounds for calculation of indirect costs of crop residuesremoval, value of plant nutrients and SOM.



5

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

For each crop were taken samples, total above ground mass, from threedifferent locations, five per plot, in the full maturity of grain, harvest time in

2011 and 2012. Weather conditions in 2011 were identified, as very dry,although such definition is common for the last decade. In 2012 they were,during reproductive period, extremely dry.

The plants were separated into fractions as further described, moisturecontent measured, mass of fractions, and their relative yield (relative to

grain yield) and harvest index calculated.

The residual mass that is expected to be harvested, depending onharvest procedure, is assigned as harvestable mass . On fieldremained mass of crop residues is calculated by subtractingharvestable from total mass of above ground residues.

The criterion for erosion protection was the amount of on field remainedbiomass. It should cover at least 30 % of surface, i.e. 1.1 Mg of flat smallgrain residue equivalent ASAE EP291.3 (Anonymous, 2005).

Tillage losses and weathering impact were calculated based on Hickman

and Schoenberger (1989) procedure.



6

CornDuring the harvest period, full grainmaturity, 2011 and 2012, eight and

seven samples of hybrids, typical forthe region, were collected at threelocations in the province Vojvodina.Harvest, typically, starts in the secondhalf of September, for hybrids of FAOgroup 400, and finishes at the end ofNovember, for the hybrids of FAOgroup 700.

The samples were taken on farms thatapply high level of agro technology.

The row distance on all plots was0.7 m, and crop density 60,000 to70,000 plants per ha, as common inthe region.



The calculation of harvestable mass is performed based on harvest procedures,described in Golub et al. (2012). This includes harvested fractions and harvestlosses. Single-pass procedure, described by some authors, is followed by

productivity reduction up to 40 % (Shinners et al., 2012). The stover harvestprocedures and assumed losses are:

Two-pass harvest. Grain harvest by combine with snapper –head and integratedshredder-cornrower described in Straeter (2011) and Shinners et al. (2012). Thestover is picked-up from windrow by round or big rectangular baler. Cutting

height is 0.2 m. Percentages of harvested fractions are 70, 90 and 90 %, forstalks+leaves, cobs and husks respectively, with additional baling losses of20 %.

Multi-pass harvest. This is conventional stover harvest procedure. As previous butcombine harvester is equipped with integrated stover shredder. It is followed by

raking, forming windrow and baling. The cutting height is 0.2 m. Percentages ofharvested fractions are 70 % for stalks+leaves and 40 % for cobs and huskscombined, with additional baling losses of 20 %.

Ears harvest. For the harvest is used picker-husker. All cobs are available afternatural drying and threshing in yard, without losses.



Sunflower

Four hybrids, only 2011 were collected. Samples were taken from 1.4m2.

As harvestable mass were treated all heads, and 30 cm of stalksbeneath heads. They were measured and treaded as the part of

harvestable mass. It was presumed that the mass coming out ofcombine harvester will be filled into baler without losses.



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Corn

Range of relative yields ofstover fractions, result of

statistical elaboration, 2011

1 – lowest 0.2 m of stalks, 2 – stalk+leaves,3 – cobs, 4 – husks, 5 – sum of 1and 5 (total aboveground

residues), 6 – sum of 2, 3 and 4



SeasonHarvest

procedure

Harvestable mass Remained mass

RY, %M, Mg/ha

DM PTM, % M, Mg/ha DM

2011

1 51 5.5 53 4.8

2 41 4.5 43 5.9

3 18 1.9 19 8.4

2012

1 72 3.8 53 3.4

2 59 3.1 43 4.0

3 22 1.1 16 6.0

RY – relative yield (to grain); M – mass calculated based on average grain yield;

PTM – percentage of total mass

Harvestable and remained corn residues for defined harvestprocedures

For both seasons the percentage of harvestable mass related to totalwas same for the harvest procedures 1 and 2, 53 and 43 % respectively,but harvestable mass considerably lower, 5.5/3.8 and 4.5/3.1 Mg/ha.



For the harvest procedure 3 i was 19% for 2011 and 16 % for 2012, i.e.1.9/1.1 Mg/ha.

The inconvenient weather conditions causes significant reduction ofharvestable mass, for all harvest procedures, 31 % for 1 and 2 and 42 % for 3.

Reduction of on filed remained biomass was about 29 % for harvestprocedures 1 and 3, and about 32 % for 2.

There are different statements about percentage of the stover that can beremoved without impacting soil fertility. According literature sources listedin Radhakrishna et al. (2012) this percentage is between 33 and 58 %. If

the percentage is too high, the stover harvest can be omitted everysecond or third year, or biomass demand can be compensate by othercrops, included in crop rotation. In any case, these issues should bestudied and residues management plan developed.



HybridStalks Branches+leaves Heads

MC Y RY MC Y RY MC Y RY

Barolo RM 14.1 3.0 0.71 13.9 1.4 0.32 13.1 1.5 0.35

Barolo RO 13.9 4.1 0.91 14.5 1.5 0.34 13.8 1.6 0.35

Neoma 13.1 2.5 0.86 14.5 1.0 0.36 13.7 1.3 0.45

Average1 13.7 3.2 0.83 14.3 1.3 0.34 16.2 1.4 0.38

SD1 0.5 0.7 0.09 0.27 0.2 0.01 0.31 0.1 0.05

Sunflower

Average grain yield 3.9 Mg ha –1, HI 0.40

Moisture content, yield of dry matter and relaive yield (to grain) forresidual mass fractions

MC – moisture content, %; Y – yield DM, Mg ha –1

; RY – relative yield related tograin; SD – standard deviation.

On field remained mass is, in average, 4,0 Mg ha –1 or about 68 % of

total above ground. This enables surface covering of 35 %.

Harvestable mass was 3,2 x 0,16 + 1,4 = 1,9 Mg ha –1 DM



CONCLUSIONS

Corn

Relative yield of corn stover is in average 85 % (related to grain).

Harvestable stover mass is, for the season with common weatherconditions, 1.9 to 5.5 Mg ha-1, depending on harvest procedure. Thedrought during reproductive period resulted with harvestable massreduction 31 to 42 %.

Corn and corn stover harvesting procedure is under development.



Sunflower

Average harvestable mass of sunflower was 1.9 Mg ha-1

.

In all cases on field remained mass enables soil cover of more than30 %.

Reduction of harvestable mass, due to inconvenient weatherconditions, as well as other impacts, should be considered by thepotentials’ assessments.

The impact of nitrogen and SOM offtake by residues removal shouldbe thoroughly examined.



REFERENCES

1. Avila-Segura, M., P. Barak, J.L. Hedtcke, and J.L. Posner. 2011. Nutrient and alkalinity removal by corn grain,

stover and cob harvest in Upper Midwest USA. Biomass and Bioenergy 35 (3): 1190-1195.2. Cook, D.E. and K.J. Shinners. 2011. Economics of alternative corn stover logistics systems. ASABE Paper

No. 1111130. St. Joseph, Mich.3. Golub, M., Bojic, S., Djatkov, Dj., G. Mickovic, and M. Martinov. 2012. Corn stover harvesting for renewableenergy and residual soil effects. Agricultural mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America – AMA 43(4): 72-79.

4. Hickman, J.S. and D.L. Schoenberger. 1989. Estimating corn residue, Cooperative Extension Service.Manhattan: Kansas.

5. Johnson J.M, Wilhelm W, Karlen D.L, Archer D.W, Wienhold B. 2010. Nutrient removal as a function of corn

stover cutting height and cob harvest. Bioenergy Research 3(4): 342-352.6. Radhakrishna S, Paz J.O, Yu F, Eksioglu S, Grebner D.L. 2012. Potential Capacities of Two Combined Heatand Power Plants Based on Available Corn Stover and Forest Logging Residue. ASABE Annual InternationalMeeting, Dallas, Texas, July 29 – August 1, Paper No: 12-1338209.

7. Shinners K. J., Bennett R. G., Hoffman D. S. 2012. Single- and two-pass corn grain and stover harvesting.Transactions of the ASABE 55(2): 341-350.

8. Stockmann et al. 2013. The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 164(2013): 80-99.

9. Straeter, J.E. 2011. Cornrower system of stover harvest. ASABE Paper No. 1110596. St. Joseph, Mich.

10. Viskovic M, Golub M, Djatkov Dj, Bojic S, Martinov M. 2012. Total and available yield of wheat harvestresidues, season 2012. Contemporary Agricultural Engineering 38(3): 267-276.

11. Zych, D. 2008. The viability of corn cobs as a bioenergy feedstock. West Central Research and OutreachCenter, University of Minnesota, Crookston.

12. Anonymous. 2005. ASAE EP291.3. Terminology and definitions for soil tillage and soil-tool relationships. St.

Joseph, Mich. ASABE.

harvestable biomass of corn and sunflower, experiences in vojvodina

Documents