Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biomass Yield and Composition of Switchgrass Bales on Marginal Land as Influenced by Harvest Management Scheme

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) is well suited to marginal croplands, but is difficult to manage sustainably both for maximum yield and optimal biomass composition. Quality can be improved by overwintering switchgrass in the field, but more information is needed on amount and consistency of yield recovery in spring. Two cultivars of switchgrass were sown on separate fields in Freeville, NY, and mowed and baled in late fall (FALL), mowed in fall and baled in spring (WINTER), or mowed and baled in spring (SPRING), using conventional field harvesting equipment. Samples were collected for analysis of plant morphological components and for determining the influence of harvest stubble height on yield and composition. Recovery of FALL biomass yields the following spring ranged from 52 to 82% and was related to both total winter snowfall and to the spring date when soil was dry enough to allow equipment traffic. Approximately 1% of dry matter yield was left in the field for each centimeter of stubble height following mowing. Bale moisture content was very low in spring, averaging 7.3%, but was much more variable and higher in the fall, averaging 22% for “Cave-in-Rock”. Inflorescence and leaf blade were the primary morphological components lost in standing switchgrass over winter. The SPRING treatment can be mowed and baled on the same day without other field operations and has higher quality than WINTER, with no consistent yield advantage for either spring baling treatment. The large and variable yield loss due to overwintering switchgrass in the field makes the practice questionable.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mitchell RB, Schmer MR, Anderson WF, Jin V, Balkcom KS, Kiniry J, Coffin A, White P (2016) Dedicated energy crops and crop residues for bioenergy feedstocks in the central and eastern USA. Bioenergy Res 9:384–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Casler MR, Sosa S, Hofmann L, Mayton H, Ernst C, Adler P, Boe AR, Bonos SA (2017) Biomass yield of switchgrass cultivars under high- vs. low-input conditions. Crop Sci 57:821–832. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.08.0698

  3. Stoof CR, Richards BK, Woodbury PB, Fabio ES, Brumbach A, Cherney JH, Das S, Geohring L, Hansen J, Hornesky J, Mayton H, Mason C, Ruestow G, Smart LB, Volk TA, Steenhuis TS (2015) Untapped potential: opportunities and challenges for sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in New York and the Northeast USA. BioEnergy Res 8:482–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nilsson D, Rosenqvistm H, Bernesson S (2015) Profitability of the production of energy grasses on marginal agricultural land in Sweden. Biomass Bioenergy 83:159–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Soldatos P (2015) Economic aspects of bioenergy production from perennial grasses in marginal lands of South Europe. Bioenergy Res 8:1562–1573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyer CN, Giffith AP, McIntosh DW, Bates GE, Keyser PD, English BC (2015) Breakeven price of biomass from switchgrass, big bluestem, and Indiangrass in a dual-purpose production system in Tennessee. Biomass Bioenergy 83:284–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Casler MD, Boe AR (2003) Cultivar x environment interactions in switchgrass. Crop Sci 43:2226–2233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson DM, Dalluge DL, Rover M, Heaton EA, Brown RC (2013) Crop management impacts biofuel quality: influence of switchgrass harvest time on yield, nitrogen and ash of fast pyrolysis products. Bioenergy Res 6:103–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fu HM, Meng FY, Molatudi RL, Zhang BG (2016) Sorghum and switchgrass as biofuel feedstocks on marginal lands in northern China. Bioenergy Res 9:633–642

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goel K, Eisner R, Sherson G, Radiotis T, Li J (2000) Switchgrass: a potential pulp fibre source. Pulp Paper-Canada 101:41–47

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnson JMF, Gresham GL (2014) Do yield and quality of big bluestem and switchgrass feedstock decline over winter? Bioenergy Res 7:68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Serapiglia MJ, Boateng AA, Lee DK, Casler MD (2016) Switchgrass harvest time management can impact biomass yield and nutrient content. Crop Sci 56:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tahir MHN, Casler MD, Moore KJ, Brummer EC (2011) Biomass yield and quality of reed canarygrass under five harvest management systems for bioenergy production. Bioenergy Res 4:111–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gorlitsky LE, Sadeghpour A, Hashemi M, Etemadi F, Herbert SJ (2015) Biomass vs. quality tradeoffs for switchgrass in response to fall harvesting period. Ind Crop Prod 63:311–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Adler PR, Sanderson MA, Boateng AA, Weimer PJ, Jung H-JG (2006) Biomass yield and biofuel quality of switchgrass harvested in fall or spring. Agron J 98:1518–1525

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gamble JD, Jungers JM, Wyse DL, Johnson GA, Lamb JA, Sheaffer CC (2015) Harvest date effects on biomass yield, moisture content, mineral concentration, and mineral export in switchgrass and native polycultures managed for bioenergy. Bioenergy Res 8:740–749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Burval J (1997) Influence of harvest time and soil type on fuel quality in reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) Biomass Bioenergy 12:149–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kludze H, Deen B, Dutta A (2013) Impact of agronomic treatments on fuel characteristics of herbaceous biomass for combustion. Fuel Process Technol 109:96–102

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Landström S, Lomakka L, Andersson S (1996) Harvest in spring improves yield and quality of reed canary grass as a bioenergy crop. Biomass Bioenergy 11:333–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Serapiglia MJ, Mullen CA, Boateng AA, Cortese LM, Bonos SA, Hoffman L (2015) Evaluation of the impact of compositional differences in switchgrass genotypes on pyrolysis product yield. Ind Crop Prod 74:957–968

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Serapiglia MJ, Mullen CA, Boateng AA, Dien BS, Casler MD (2017) Impact of harvest time and cultivar on conversion of switchgrass to bio-oils via fast pyrolysis. Bioenergy Res 10:388–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-016-9812-5

  22. Williams CL, Westover TL, Emerson EM, Tumuluru JS, Li C (2016) Sources of biomass feedstock variability and the potential impact on biofuels production. Bioenergy Res 9:1–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cherney JH, Ketterings Q, Cherney DJR (2016) Soil contamination of grass biomass hay: measurements and implications. Bioenergy Res 9:773–781

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Samson R, Bailey-Stamler S, Ho Lem, C (2008) Optimization of switchgrass management for commercial fuel pellet production. Final report prepared by REAP-Canada for the Ontario Ministry of Food, Agric. and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Alternative Renewable Fuels Research and Development Fund. Guelph, Ontario, CAN

  25. Cherney JH, Volenec JJ, Nyquist WE (1985) Sequential fiber analysis of forage as influenced by sample weight. Crop Sci 25:1113–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Little RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Russell RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shinners KJ, Boettcher GC, Muck RE, Wiemer PJ, Casler MD (2006) Drying, harvesting and storage characteristics of perennial grasses as biomass feedstocks. ASABE Paper Number 061012, 19 pp, 9–12 July, 2006, Portland, OR, USA

  28. Cherney JH, Kettering QK, Davis M, Cherney DJR, Paddock KM (2017) Management of warm- and cool-season grasses for biomass on marginal lands: I. Yield and soil fertility status. Bioenergy Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9869-9

  29. Jannasch R, Duxbury P, Samson R (2001) Development of bioenergy feedstocks: agronomy data from Eastern Canada. REAP-Canada final report to Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Contract #23384–005068/001/SQ, 28 pp

  30. Girouard P, Samson R (1997) Evaluation of haymaking equipment to harvest switchgrass/part II. REAP-Canada internal report, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, 12 pp

  31. Jenkins BM, Bakker RR, Wei JB (1995) On the properties of washed straw. Biomass Bioenergy 10:177–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ogden C, Ileleji K, Johnson K (2010) In-field direct combustion fuel property changes of switchgrass harvested from summer to fall. Fuel Process Technol 91:266–271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Cherney JH, Verma VK (2013) Grass pellet quality index: a tool to evaluate suitability of grass pellets for small scale combustion systems. Appl Energy 103:679–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Cherney, JH, Kettering, QK, Davis, M, Cherney, DJR, Paddock KM (2017) Management of warm- and cool-season grasses for biomass on marginal lands: II. Composition and nutrient balance. Bioenergy Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9870-3

  35. Cherney DJR, Cherney JH (2005) Forage yield and quality of temperate perennial grasses as influenced by stubble height. Online Forage Grazinglands. https://doi.org/10.1094/FG-2005-0215-01-RS

  36. Cherney JH, Ketterings QM, Orloski JL (2004) Plant and soil elemental status as influenced by multi-year nitrogen and potassium fertilization. J Plant Nutr 27:991–1014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Multistate Project 218756. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Soil and Crop Science Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    J. H. Cherney & K. M. Paddock

  2. Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA

    D. J. R. Cherney

Authors
  1. J. H. Cherney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. J. R. Cherney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. M. Paddock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. H. Cherney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cherney, J.H., Cherney, D.J.R. & Paddock, K.M. Biomass Yield and Composition of Switchgrass Bales on Marginal Land as Influenced by Harvest Management Scheme. Bioenerg. Res. 11, 33–43 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9875-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-017-9875-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation