You are on page 1of 15

1

Harvestable biomass of corn and sunflower,


experiences in Vojvodina
2
1. INTRODUCTION

Crop residues, as non food and non feed biomass, become
desirable 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 mentioned
problems.
3

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

Values of removed nutrients have been assessed as well. The range is
4.64 to 30 US$/Mg of stover DM (Cook and Shinners, 2011; Zych, 2008;
Avila-Segura et al., 2011). Maybe the most realistic costs are given by
Johnson et al. (2010), 18.1, 17.6 and 11.7 US$/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$/Mg
of stover DM. The impact of stover removal on erosion value expressed as
15 US$/Mg. This value should be further studied, considering amount of
nitrogen that can be used by following crops. Reduction of usable nitrogen
can influence the nutrients value considerably.
4
It has been concluded that the backgrounds for the assessment of crop
residues potentials, harvestable mass, of major field crops are missing, as
well as seasonal drought influence on it. Backgrounds for assessment of
crop residues removal on nutrients and SOM value and soil protection of
erosion are missing as well. The main objective of the investigation was to
define these backgrounds for the agricultural region of Serbia, Vojvodina.

The specific objectives were:
1. To define potentials, harvestable amount, in dependence of seasonal
weather conditions, applied for two years, with dry, recently common for
the region, and extremely dry conditions.
2. To quantify above ground residues remained on the field, after biomass
removal and evaluate potentials for erosion protection.
3. To create backgrounds for calculation of indirect costs of crop residues
removal, value of plant nutrients and SOM.
5
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
For each crop were taken samples, total above ground mass, from three
different 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, moisture
content 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 on
harvest procedure, is assigned as harvestable mass. On field
remained mass of crop residues is calculated by subtracting
harvestable from total mass of above ground residues.
The criterion for erosion protection was the amount of on field remained
biomass. It should cover at least 30 % of surface, i.e. 1.1 Mg of flat small
grain residue equivalent ASAE EP291.3 (Anonymous, 2005).
Tillage losses and weathering impact were calculated based on Hickman
and Schoenberger (1989) procedure.
6
Corn
During the harvest period, full grain
maturity, 2011 and 2012, eight and
seven samples of hybrids, typical for
the region, were collected at three
locations in the province Vojvodina.
Harvest, typically, starts in the second
half of September, for hybrids of FAO
group 400, and finishes at the end of
November, for the hybrids of FAO
group 700.
The samples were taken on farms that
apply high level of agro technology.
The row distance on all plots was
0.7 m, and crop density 60,000 to
70,000 plants per ha, as common in
the region.
7
The calculation of harvestable mass is performed based on harvest procedures,
described in Golub et al. (2012). This includes harvested fractions and harvest
losses. Single-pass procedure, described by some authors, is followed by
productivity reduction up to 40 % (Shinners et al., 2012). The stover harvest
procedures and assumed losses are:

Two-pass harvest. Grain harvest by combine with snapperhead and integrated
shredder-cornrower described in Straeter (2011) and Shinners et al. (2012). The
stover 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 %, for
stalks+leaves, cobs and husks respectively, with additional baling losses of
20 %.

Multi-pass harvest. This is conventional stover harvest procedure. As previous but
combine harvester is equipped with integrated stover shredder. It is followed by
raking, forming windrow and baling. The cutting height is 0.2 m. Percentages of
harvested fractions are 70 % for stalks+leaves and 40 % for cobs and husks
combined, with additional baling losses of 20 %.

Ears harvest. For the harvest is used picker-husker. All cobs are available after
natural drying and threshing in yard, without losses.
8
Sunflower
Four hybrids, only 2011 were collected. Samples were taken from 1.4
m
2
.
As harvestable mass were treated all heads, and 30 cm of stalks
beneath heads. They were measured and treaded as the part of
harvestable mass. It was presumed that the mass coming out of
combine harvester will be filled into baler without losses.
9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Corn
Range of relative yields of
stover fractions, result of
statistical elaboration, 2011

1 lowest 0.2 m of stalks, 2
stalk+leaves,
3 cobs, 4 husks, 5 sum of 1
and 5 (total aboveground
residues), 6 sum of 2, 3 and 4
10
Season
Harvest
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 harvest
procedures
For both seasons the percentage of harvestable mass related to total
was 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.
11
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 of
harvestable mass, for all harvest procedures, 31 % for 1 and 2 and 42 %
for 3.
Reduction of on filed remained biomass was about 29 % for harvest
procedures 1 and 3, and about 32 % for 2.

There are different statements about percentage of the stover that can be
removed without impacting soil fertility. According literature sources listed
in Radhakrishna et al. (2012) this percentage is between 33 and 58 %. If
the percentage is too high, the stover harvest can be omitted every
second or third year, or biomass demand can be compensate by other
crops, included in crop rotation. In any case, these issues should be
studied and residues management plan developed.
12
Hybrid
Stalks 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
Average
1
13.7 3.2 0.83 14.3 1.3 0.34 16.2 1.4 0.38
SD
1
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) for
residual mass fractions
MC moisture content, %; Y yield DM, Mg ha
1
; RY relative yield related to
grain; 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
13
CONCLUSIONS
Corn
Relative yield of corn stover is in average 85 % (related to grain).
Harvestable stover mass is, for the season with common weather
conditions, 1.9 to 5.5 Mg ha
-1
, depending on harvest procedure. The
drought during reproductive period resulted with harvestable mass
reduction 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 than
30 %.


Reduction of harvestable mass, due to inconvenient weather
conditions, as well as other impacts, should be considered by the
potentials assessments.


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

15
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 renewable
energy 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 Heat
and Power Plants Based on Available Corn Stover and Forest Logging Residue. ASABE Annual International
Meeting, 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 harvest
residues, 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 Outreach
Center, University of Minnesota, Crookston.
12. Anonymous. 2005. ASAE EP291.3. Terminology and definitions for soil tillage and soil-tool relationships. St.
Joseph, Mich. ASABE.

You might also like