BioEnergy Research

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 598–608 | Cite as

Site-Specific Trade-offs of Harvesting Cereal Residues as Biofuel Feedstocks in Dryland Annual Cropping Systems of the Pacific Northwest, USA

  • David R. Huggins
  • Chad E. Kruger
  • Kathleen M. Painter
  • David P. Uberuaga


Cereal residues are considered an important feedstock for future biofuel production. Harvesting residues, however, could lead to serious soil degradation and impaired agroecosystem services. Our objective was to evaluate trade-offs of harvesting wheat and barley residues including impacts on soil erosion and quality, soil organic C (SOC), and nutrient removal. We used agricultural data from 369 geo-referenced points on the 37-ha Washington State University Cook Agronomy Farm combined with model simulations to develop straw harvest scenarios for conventional tillage (CT) and no-tillage (NT) and both 2- and 3-year crop rotations with sequences of wheat, barley, and peas. Site-specific estimates of ethanol production from 2- and 3-year rotation scenarios ranged from 681 to 1,541 L ha−1 yr−1, indicating that both crop rotation and site-specific targeting of residue harvest are important factors. Harvesting straw reduced residue C inputs by 46 % and resulted in levels below that required to maintain SOC under CT. This occurred as a function of both straw harvest and low residue producing crops in rotation. Harvesting straw under CT was predicted to reduce soil quality as Soil Conditioning Indices (SCIs) were negative throughout the field. In contrast, SCIs under NT were positive despite straw harvest. Replacement value of nutrients (N, P, K, S) removed in harvested straw averaged $14.54 Mg−1 dry straw and ranged from $36.04 to $80.30 ha−1, while straw harvesting costs averaged $34.25 Mg−1, and the current (2014) market value of straw is $65 Mg−1. We concluded that substantial trade-offs exist in harvesting straw for biofuel, that trade-offs should be evaluated on a site-specific basis, and that support practices such as crop rotation, reduced tillage, and site-specific nutrient management need to be considered if residue harvest is to be sustainable.


Wheat residue Biofuels Cereal straw Ethanol Soil quality Soil carbon 



conventional tillage




soil organic carbon


soil conditioning index


Pacific Northwest


Cook Agronomy Farm


Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation


geographical information systems


digital elevation model


winter wheat


spring wheat


spring barley


spring pea



This study was conducted as part of the Climate Friendly Farming Project with funding provided by the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. Additional support was provided through the USDA Solutions to Economic and Environmental Problems (STEEP) as well as the projects “Regional Approaches to Climate Change for Pacific Northwest Agriculture” (REACCH) and “Site-Specific Climate-Friendly Farming” (SCF) funded through awards #2011-68002-30191 and #2011-67003-30341, respectively, from the USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture.


  1. 1.
    Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC. Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply DOE/GO-102005-2135 and ORNL/TM-2005/66. 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    USDOE-EIA (United States Department of Energy-Energy Information Administration). 2013. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  3. 3.
    Melillo JM, Gurgel AC, Kicklighter DW, Reilly JM, Cronin TW, Felzer BS, Paltsev S, Schlosser CA, Sokolov AP, Wang X (2009) Unintended environmental consequences of a global biofuels program. Report No. 168. Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Righelato R, Spracklen DV (2007) Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by saving and restoring forests? Science 317(5840):902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 319:1238–1240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pimentel D, Patzek T, Cecil G (2007) Ethanol production: energy, economic, and environmental losses. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 189:25–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fargione JE, Cooper TR, Flaspohler DJ, Hill J, Lehman C, McCoy T, McCleod S, Nelson EJ, Oberhauser KS, Tilman D (2008) Bioenergy and wildlife: threats and opportunities for grassland conservation. Bioscience 59:767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wiens J, Fargione J, Hill J (2011) Biofuels and biodiversity. Ecol Appl 21(4):1085–1095PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vadas PA, Barnett KH, Undersander DJ (2008) Economics and energy of ethanol production from alfalfa, corn, and switchgrass in the upper Midwest, USA. Bioenergy Res 1:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:11206–11210PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J, Perlack RD, Wright LL (2007) Current and potential U.S. corn stover supplies. Agron J 99:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sala OE, Sax D, Leslie H (2009) Biodiversity consequences of biofuel production. In: Howarth RW, Bringezu S (eds) Biofuels: environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25 September 2008. Cornell University, Ithaca, pp 127–137Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shinners KJ, Boettcher GC, Hoffman DS, Munk JT, Muck RE, Weimer PJ (2009) Single-pass harvest of corn grain and stover: performance of three harvester configurations. Trans ASABE 52(1):51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sarath G, Mitchell RB, Sattler SE, Funnell D, Pedersen JF, Graybosch RA, Vogel KP (2008) Opportunities and roadblocks in utilizing forages and small grains for liquid fuels. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 35:343–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blanco-Canqui H, Lal R (2009) Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. Crit Rev Plant Sci 28:139–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelson RG, Walsh M, Sheehan JJ, Graham R (2004) Methodology for estimating removable quantities of agricultural residues for bioenergy and bioproduct use. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 113:13–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lal R (2005) World crop residues production and implications of its use as a biofuel. Environ Intl 31:575–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lemus R, Lal R (2005) Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson JMF, Reicosky D, Allmaras R, Archer D, Wilhelm WW (2006) A matter of balance: conservation and renewable energy. J Soil Water Conserv 61:120A–125AGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson JMF, Coleman MD, Gesch R, Jaradat A, Mitchell RB, Reicosky D, Wilhelm WW (2007) Biomass-bioenergy crops in the United States: a changing paradigm. Am J Plant Sci Biotechnol 1:1–28Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilhelm WW, Johnson JMF, Karlen DL, Lightle DT (2007) Corn stover to sustain soil organic carbon further constrains biomass supply. Agron J 99:1665–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lal R (2009) Soil quality impacts of residue removal for bioethanol production. Soil Till Res 102:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mann L, Tolbert V, Cushman J (2002) Potential environmental effects of corn (Zea mays L.) stover removal with emphasis on soil organic matter and erosion. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:149–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Montgomery DR (2007) Dirt: the erosion of civilizations. University of California, Berkeley, 295 pGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dale VH, Kline KL, Wright LL, Perlack RD, Downing M, Graham RL (2011) Interactions among bioenergy feedstock choices, landscape dynamics, and land use. Ecol Appl 21:1039–1054PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huggins DR, Karow RS, Collins HP, Ransom JK (2011) Introduction: evaluating long-term impacts of harvesting crop residues on soil quality. Agron J 103:230–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Duft KD, Pray J. The prospects for an electrical generation and transmission cooperative fueled by straw produced in eastern Washington. WSU Farm Business Management Report EB1946E. 2002. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  28. 28.
    USDA (1980) Soil Conservation Service. Soil survey of Whitman County, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deutsch CV, Journel AG (1998) GSLIB Geostatistical Software Library and User’s Guide, Second editionth edn. Oxford University Press, New York, 369 ppGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Environmental Systems Research Institute. ArcGIS version 10.0. Redlands, CA. 2011Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kadam KL, McMillan JD (2003) Availability of corn stover as a sustainable feedstock for bioethanol production. Bioresour Technol 88:17–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Idaho Input Cost publication series. Cost and return estimates (enterprise budgets). 2011. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  33. 33.
    Patterson, P and Painter K. Custom rates for Idaho agricultural operations 2010-2011. BUL 729, University of Idaho. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  34. 34.
    USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation version 2. 2011. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  35. 35.
    Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, McCool DK, Yoder DC (1997) Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 703. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 404 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    National Climate Data Center. NOAA station # 456789, Pullman 2 NW, WA. 2008. Available at: (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  37. 37.
    USDA (1993) Soil survey manual. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 189 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Desmet PJJ, Glovers G (1996) A GIS procedure for automatically calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units. J Soil and Water Cons 51(5):427–433Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mitasova H, Hofierka J, Zlocha M, Iverson LR (1996) Modelling topographic potential for erosion and deposition using GIS. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 10:629–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McCool DK, Foster GR, Mutchler CK, Meyer LD (1989) Revised slope length factor for the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Trans ASAE 32:1571–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    SAS Institute Inc (2009) SAS OnlineDoc® 9.2. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McCool DK (1992) Using divided slopes and field strips for managing variable cropland: effectiveness for reducing runoff and soil erosion. In: Veseth R, Miller B (eds) Precision farming for profit and conservation. 10th Inland Northwest Conservation Farming Conference Proceedings, Washington State University, Pullman, pp 67–69Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    USDA, NRCS. Soil conditioning index. 2014. (assessed 06 February, 2014)
  44. 44.
    USDA, NRCS. Soil conditioning index worksheet (version 25). 2003. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  45. 45.
    Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Ethanol futures price for Sept. 2012. 2012. Available at (accessed 27 Aug. 2012)
  46. 46.
    Long DS, McCallum JD, Huggins DR. On-combine sensing technique for mapping straw yield within wheat fields. In: R. Khosia (ed.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Precision Agriculture, Denver, Colorado, USA. July 18–21, 2010Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Huggins DR, Reganold JP (2008) No-till: the quiet revolution. Sci Am 299:70–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rasmussen PE, Collins HP (1991) Long-term impacts of tillage, fertilizer, and crop residue on soil organic matter in temperate semi-arid regions. Adv Agron 45:93–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kerstetter JD, Lyons JK. Wheat straw for ethanol production in Washington: a resource, technical and economic assessment. Washington State University Energy Publication WSUCEEP2001084. 2001.Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  50. 50.
    Banowetz GM, Boateng A, Steiner JH, Griffith SM, Sethi V, el Nasharr H (2008) Assessment of straw biomass feedstock resources in the Pacific Northwest. Biomass Bioenergy 32:629–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schillinger W F, Papendick RI, Guy SO, Rasmussen PE, van Kessel C. Dryland cropping in the western United States. Pacific Northwest conservation tillage handbook series no. 28 chapter 2—conservation tillage systems and equipment. 2003. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  52. 52.
    Western Governors’ Association. Clean energy, a strong economy and a healthy environment. Biomass Task Force Report. 2006. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  53. 53.
    USDA, SCS, FS, ESCS. Erosion in the Palouse: a summary of the Palouse River Basin Study. 1979. Available at (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  54. 54.
    USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Conservation stewardship program. 2014. Available at Stewardship Program | NRCS (accessed 06 February, 2014)
  55. 55.
    Gollany HT, Rickman RW, Liang Y, Albrecht SL, Machado S, Kang S (2011) Predicting agricultural management influence on long-term soil organic carbon dynamics: implications for biofuel production. Agron J 103:234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Machado S (2011) Soil organic carbon dynamics in the Pendleton long-term experiments: implications for biofuel production in Pacific Northwest. Agron J 103:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Qiu H, Huggins DR, Wu JQ, Barber ME, McCool DK, Dun S (2011) Residue management impacts on field-scale snow distribution and soil water storage. Trans ASAE 54:1639–1647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schillinger WF, Schofstoll SE, Alldredge JR (2008) Available water and wheat grain yield relations in a Mediterranean climate. Field Crop Res 109:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brown TT, Koenig RT, Huggins DR, Harsh JB, Rossi RE (2008) Lime effects on soil acidity, crop yield and aluminum chemistry in direct-seed cropping systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:634–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Huggins
    • 1
  • Chad E. Kruger
    • 2
  • Kathleen M. Painter
    • 3
  • David P. Uberuaga
    • 4
  1. 1.Land Management and Water Conservation Research Unit, USDA-ARSWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural ResourcesWashington State UniversityWenatcheeUSA
  3. 3.Agricultural Economics and Rural SociologyUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  4. 4.Department of Crop and Soil ScienceWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations