Skip to main content
Log in

Crop Residue Harvest Economics: An Iowa and North Dakota Case Study

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rigorous economic analyses are crucial for the successful launch of lignocellulosic bioenergy facilities in 2014 and beyond. Our objectives are to (1) introduce readers to a query tool developed to use data downloaded from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) REAPnet for constructing enterprise budgets and (2) demonstrate the use of the query tool with REAPnet data from two field research sites (Ames, IA, and Mandan, ND) for evaluating short-term economic performance of various biofuel feedstock production strategies. Our results for both sites showed that short-term (<3 years) impacts on grain profitability were lower at lower average annual crop residue removal rates. However, it will be important to monitor longer term changes to see if grain profitability declines over time and if biomass harvest degrades soil resources. Analyses for Iowa showed short-term breakeven field-edge biomass prices of $26–$42 Mg−1 among the most efficient strategies, while results for North Dakota showed breakeven prices of $54–$73 Mg−1. We suggest that development of the data query tool is important because it helps illustrate several different soil and crop management strategies that could be used to provide sustainable feedstock supplies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Petrolia DR (2008) The economics of harvesting and transporting corn stover for conversion to fuel ethanol: a case study for Minnesota. Biomass Bioenergy 32:603–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gallagher PW, Dikeman M, Fritz J et al (2003) Supply and social cost estimates for biomass from crop residues in the United States. Environ Resour Econ 24:335–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. James LK, Swinton SM, Thelen KD (2010) Profitability analysis of cellulosic energy crops compared with corn. Agron J 102:675–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brechbill S, Tyner W, Ileleji K (2011) The economics of biomass collection and transportation and its supply to Indiana cellulosic and electric utility facilities. BioEnergy Res 4:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Perrin R, Sesmero J, Wamisho K, Bacha D (2012) Biomass supply schedules for Great Plains delivery points. Biomass Bioenergy 37:213–220. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.12.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Archer DW, Johnson JMF (2012) Evaluating local crop residue biomass supply: economic and environmental impacts. BioEnergy Res 5:699–712. doi:10.1007/s12155-012-9178-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sesmero JP, Gramig BM (2013) Farmers’ supply response, price of corn residue, and its economic viability as an energy feedstock. BioEnergy Res 6:797–807. doi:10.1007/s12155-013-9300-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J et al (2007) Current and potential U.S. corn stover supplies. Agron J 99:1–11. doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kurkalova LA, Secchi S, Gassman PW (2010) Corn stover harvesting: potential supply and water quality implications. In: Khanna M et al (eds) Handbook of bioenergy economics and policy. Springer, New York, pp 307–323

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Karlen DL, Birell SJ, Hess JR (2011) A five-year assessment of corn stover harvest in central Iowa, USA. Soil Tillage Res 115–116:47–55. doi:10.1016/j.still.2011.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lafond GP, Stumborg M, Lemke R et al (2009) Quantifying straw removal through baling and measuring the long-term impact on soil quality and wheat production. Agron J 101:529–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson J, Acosta-Martinez V, Cambardella C, Barbour N (2013) Crop and soil responses to using corn stover as a bioenergy feedstock: observations from the northern US Corn Belt. Agriculture 3:72–89. doi:10.3390/agriculture3010072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Karlen DL (2010) Corn stover feedstock trials to support predictive modeling. GCB Bioenergy 2:235–247. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01061.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Del Grosso SJ, White JW, Wilson G et al (2013) Introducing the GRACEnet/REAP data contribution, discovery, and retrieval system. J Environ Qual 42:1274. doi:10.2134/jeq2013.03.0097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lazarus WF (2013) Machinery Cost Estimates. http://faculty.apec.umn.edu/wlazarus/documents/machdata.pdf. Accessed 8 Nov 2013

  16. Painter K (2011) The costs of owning and operating farm machinery in the Pacific Northwest 2011. University of Idaho Extension, Moscow

    Google Scholar 

  17. USDA-NASS (2013) Quick Stats 2.0. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/index.php. Accessed 27 Sep 2013

  18. JMP 10.0.2. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC

  19. NOAA-NCDC (2013) NOAA’s 1981-2010 Climate Normals. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html. Accessed 8 Nov 2013

  20. Johnson J, Wilhelm W, Karlen D et al (2010) Nutrient removal as a function of corn stover cutting height and cob harvest. BioEnergy Res 3:342–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the USDA-Agricultural Research Service as part of the USDA-ARS Resilient Economic Agricultural Practices (REAP) project with additional funds from the North Central Regional Sun Grant Center at South Dakota State University through a grant provided by the US Department of Energy (DOE)-Office of Biomass Programs [now known as the Bioenergy Technology Office (BETO)] under award number DE-FC36-05GO85041.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David W. Archer.

Additional information

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the US Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 108 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 108 kb)

ESM 3

(PDF 118 kb)

ESM 4

(PDF 117 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Archer, D.W., Karlen, D.L. & Liebig, M.A. Crop Residue Harvest Economics: An Iowa and North Dakota Case Study. Bioenerg. Res. 7, 568–575 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9428-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-014-9428-6

Keywords

Navigation