Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Restricting Second-Generation Energy Crop Production to Marginal Land

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Production of switchgrass as a dedicated energy crop in the USA was proposed as a way to produce valuable products on millions of hectares that had been bid from traditional crop production by a variety of federal programs. The objective of the present study is to determine the expected economic consequences in terms of cost to deliver biomass feedstock, from restricting switchgrass production to marginal land for a case study region, when (a) land use is restricted to class IV; (b) land use is restricted to classes III and IV; and (c) use of land capability classes I, II, III, and IV is permitted. A hypothetical biorefinery with a processing capacity of 2000 Mg/day is assumed with switchgrass as the single biomass source. Soils and weather data were used in combination with crop management data to simulate switchgrass yields for each land capability class, for 50 years, for each of 30 Oklahoma counties. Land opportunity cost required to bid land from current use for each land capability class and each county were simulated based on the 2013 revealed county average Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) rental rates adjusted across capability class by relative productivity. A mathematical programming model was constructed and solved to determine the optimal quantity, location, and quality of the land leased. For the case study region, restricting land use to only capability class IV increases the land requirement by 44 % and increases the cost to deliver feedstock by 32 % compared to when switchgrass production is permitted on land classes I–IV.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lubowski RN, Vesterby M, Bucholtz S, Baez A, Roberts MJ (2006) Major uses of land in the United States, 2002. Economic Information Bull. 14. United States, Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service

  2. Hanson GD (1985) Financial analysis of a proposed large-scale ethanol cogeneration project. South J Agric Econ 17(02):67–76

    Google Scholar 

  3. United States Department of Agriculture FSA (2014) conservation programs. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=rns-css Accessed December 18, 2014

  4. McLaughlin S, Bouton J, Bransby D, Conger B, Ocumpaugh W, Parrish D, Taliaferro C, Vogel K, Wullschleger S (1999) Developing switchgrass as a bioenergy crop. In: Janick J (ed) Perspectives on New Crops and New Uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, pp 282–299

    Google Scholar 

  5. Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a436753.pdf Accessed March 2, 2015

  6. Pacheco M (2006) How biofuels can help reduce dependence on foreign oil. Statement prepared by National Renewable Energy Laboratory, National Bioenergy Center, for U.S. Senate Full Committee Hearing-Renewable Fuel Standards, 19 June, 2006

  7. United States Congress (2007) Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA07). 110th U.S. Congress

  8. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Searchinger T, Heimlich R, Houghton RA, Dong F, Elobeid A, Fabiosa J, Tokgoz S, Hayes D, Yu TH (2008) Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319(5867):1238–1240

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Broch A, Hoekman SK, Unnasch S (2013) A review of variability in indirect land use change assessment and modeling in biofuel policy. Env Sci Policy 29:147–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mapemba LD, Epplin FM, Taliaferro CM, Huhnke RL (2007) Biorefinery feedstock production on Conservation Reserve Program land. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 29(2):227–246

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gopalakrishnan G, Cristina Negri M, Snyder SW (2011) A novel framework to classify marginal land for sustainable biomass feedstock production. J Environ Qual 40(5):1593–1600

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kang S, Post WM, Nichols JA, Wang D, West TO, Bandaru V, Izaurralde RC (2013) Marginal lands: concept, assessment and management. J Agric Sci 5(5):129–139

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lewis SM, Kelly M (2014) Mapping the potential for biofuel production on marginal lands: differences in definitions, data and models across scales. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 3(2):430–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Richards BK, Stoof CR, Cary IJ, Woodbury PB (2014) Reporting on marginal lands for bioenergy feedstock production: a modest proposal. BioEnergy Res 7(3):1060–1062

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ricardo D (1817) On the principles of political economy, and taxation. J. M. Dent & sons, Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grieve RH (2012) The marginal productivity theory of the price of capital: an historical perspective on the origins of the codswallop. Real-World Econ Rev 60:139–149

    Google Scholar 

  18. Peterson GM, Galbraith J (1932) The concept of marginal land. J Farm Econ 14(2):295–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bibby JS, Mackney D (1969) Land use capability classification. Soil survey technical monograph No. 1. Rothamsted Experimental Station Harpenden

  20. Larson G, Roloff G, Larson W (1988) A new approach to marginal agricultural land classification. J Soil Water Conserv 43(1):103–106

    Google Scholar 

  21. Norton EA (1939) Soil conservation survey handbook. 352. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication No. 352, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  22. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1961) Land capability classification. Agricultural Handbook Number 210. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Accessed August 12, 2014

  23. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010) Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory impact analysis. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420r10006.pdf Accessed March 14, 2014

  24. Isik M, Yang W (2004) An analysis of the effects of uncertainty and irreversibility on farmer participation in the Conservation Reserve Program. J Agric Resour Econ 242–259

  25. Hellerstein DR, Malcolm SA (2011) The influence of rising commodity prices on the Conservation Reserve Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Report Number 110. http://ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err110.aspx Accessed January 14, 2015

  26. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Service Geographic (SSURGO) (2014) Database for Oklahoma. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm/. Accessed August 8, 2014

  27. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2015) Commodity costs and returns. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns.aspx Accessed March, 18, 2015

  28. Jensen K, Clark CD, Ellis P, English B, Menard J, Walsh M, de la Torre Ugarte D (2007) Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 31(11):773–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bergtold JS, Fewell J, Williams J (2014) Farmers’ willingness to produce alternative cellulosic biofuel feedstocks under contract in Kansas using stated choice experiments. BioEnergy Res 7(3):876–884

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang C (2009) Economic analysis of delivering switchgrass to a biorefinery from both the farmers’ and processor’s perspectives. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville

    Google Scholar 

  31. United States Energy Information Administration (2015) Petroleum and other liquids outlook. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emd_epd2d_pte_nus_dpg&f=a Accessed March 4, 2015

  32. Oklahoma Climatological Survey. Oklahoma Mesonet (2014) Daily weather data. http://cig.mesonet.org/∼gmcmanus/freeze/freeze.html/ Accessed August 16, 2014

  33. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2014) Daily weather data for Oklahoma. http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/viewer/#app=clim&cfg=cdo&theme=daily&layers=0001&node=gis Accessed August 16, 2014

  34. Egbendewe-Mondzozo A, Swinton SM, Izaurralde CR, Manowitz DH, Zhang X (2011) Biomass supply from alternative cellulosic crops and crop residues: a spatially explicit bioeconomic modeling approach. Biomass Bioenergy 35(11):4636–4647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Debnath D, Epplin FM, Stoecker AL (2014) Managing spatial and temporal switchgrass biomass yield variability. BioEnergy Res 7(3):946–957

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wright L, Turhollow A (2010) Switchgrass selection as a “model” bioenergy crop: A history of the process. Biomass Bioenergy 34(6):851–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Turhollow A, Epplin F (2012) Estimating region specific costs to produce and deliver switchgrass. In: Monti A (ed) Switchgrass: A valuable biomass crop for energy. Springer, New York, pp 187–203

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Brechbill SC, Tyner WE, Ileleji KE (2011) The economics of biomass collection and transportation and its supply to Indiana cellulosic and electric utility facilities. BioEnergy Res 4(2):141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang P, Zhang Q, Pei Z, Wang D (2013) Cost estimates of cellulosic ethanol production: a review. J Manuf Sci Eng 135(2):021005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Haque M, Epplin FM (2012) Cost to produce switchgrass and cost to produce ethanol from switchgrass for several levels of biorefinery investment cost and biomass to ethanol conversion rates. Biomass Bioenergy 46:517–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Epplin FM (1996) Cost to produce and deliver switchgrass biomass to an ethanol-conversion facility in the southern plains of the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 11(6):459–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Duffy M (2007) Estimated costs for production, storage, and transportation of switchgrass. Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Ames

    Google Scholar 

  43. Epplin FM, Clark CD, Roberts RK, Hwang S (2007) Challenges to the development of a dedicated energy crop. Am J Agric Econ 89(5):1296–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Khanna M, Dhungana B, Clifton-Brown J (2008) Costs of producing miscanthus and switchgrass for bioenergy in Illinois. Biomass Bioenergy 32(6):482–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mapemba LD, Epplin FM, Huhnke RL, Taliaferro CM (2008) Herbaceous plant biomass harvest and delivery cost with harvest segmented by month and number of harvest machines endogenously determined. Biomass Bioenergy 32(11):1016–1027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kazi FK, Fortman J, Anex R, Hsu D, Aden A, Dutta A, Kothandaraman G (2010) Techno-economic comparison of process technologies for biochemical ethanol production from corn stover. Fuel 89:S20–S28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. United States Department of Energy (2011) U.S. Billion-Ton Update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Perlack RD and Stokes BJ (Leads), ORNL/TM-2011/224. Oak Ridge National Laboratory

  48. Bryngelsson DK, Lindgren K (2013) Why large-scale bioenergy production on marginal land is unfeasible: a conceptual partial equilibrium analysis. Energy Policy 55:454–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Gelfand I, Sahajpal R, Zhang X, Izaurralde RC, Gross KL, Robertson GP (2013) Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the U.S. Midwest. Nature 493(7433):514–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Liu T, McConkey B, Ma Z, Liu Z, Li X, Cheng L (2011) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis of bioenergy production on marginal land. Energy Procedia 5:2378–2386

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by the USDA-NIFA, USDA-DOE Biomass Research and Development Initiative, Grant No. 2009-10006-06070, by the Jean & Patsy Neustadt Chair, by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch grant number H-2824, and by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station. Support does not constitute an endorsement of the views expressed in the paper by the USDA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 74078-6026, USA

    Amadou Gouzaye & Francis M. Epplin

Authors
  1. Amadou Gouzaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francis M. Epplin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis M. Epplin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gouzaye, A., Epplin, F.M. Restricting Second-Generation Energy Crop Production to Marginal Land. Bioenerg. Res. 9, 257–269 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9689-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9689-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation