Ayers 2012 charleston poster
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Ayers 2012 charleston poster

on

  • 262 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
262
Views on SlideShare
262
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Ayers 2012 charleston poster Ayers 2012 charleston poster Document Transcript

  • SOUTHEAST MISSOURI BIOMASS STUDY Ayers, V.H. 1; Boessen, C.2; Gedikogle, H.3; Parcell, J.4; Roach, A.5 1Agricultureand Rural Development Specialist, University of Missouri Extension, Bloomfield, MO 63825; 2Teaching Assistant Professor, University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211; 3Assistant Professor of Research, Lincoln University, Jefferson City, MO 65101; 4Professor, Agriculture Economics and State Farm Management Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; 5Consultant, Value Ag. LLC, Columbia, MO, 65211 Abstract There has been an increased interest among farmers and business personnel in developing the agriculture biomass industry in Southeast Missouri. The Stoddard County Industrial Development Authority, with cooperation from University of Missouri Extension funded a biomass study, focusing on Stoddard and adjacent Missouri counties. A survey of 1755 farmers living in Southeast Missouri was conducted. There were 68 responses included in the final report. More than half of the respondents stated they would supply field residue for a biomass enterprise. Those who were not interested stated that a biomass harvest would be bad for the soil. Farmers were more interested in supplying biomass by a contractual arrangement than in becoming member-investors in an enterprise that converts biomass into renewable products. Most farmers preferred three year contracts to supply biomass from their farm. Some respondents were familiar with energy crops. They were more familiar with sweet sorghum than other crops such as triticale or miscanthus. 60% 57.1% 56.3% 52.6% 51.1% 120% 49.6% 50% 47.7% % of Residue Preferred to Remove No response 100.00% 3% 100% 40% Percent of Respondents 80% County by County Breakdown of Southeast Missouri Crop Residue Biomass No Yes 60% 30% 20% 43% 40% 54% 10% 20% 9.09% 0% 0% I earn sufficient farm income now. Its not good for my ground. Corn Soybeans Wheat Forage/Hay Rice Cotton Would you be willing to provide Why aren’t you interested in providing Percent of residue you would prefer to remove field residue for bioenergy production? field residue for bioenergy production? From field. No response 6% No No response response 12% 10% Yes No 38% No 32% Yes 54% Yes 34% 62% No 52% Would you be willing to become a member Would you be willing to become a member Would you be willing to contract to a investor of a business that converts biomass investor of a firm that converts biomass processor if given adequate information to methane and electricity? to ethanol? And compensation? 70% 14 13 $300 58.1% $250 Respondents Familiar with Energy Crop 60% 12 $250A county-by-county breakdown of biomass resources available in the project region. In total, the region has access to 50% 10 $221 Percent of Respondents $200 $185more than 768 million bone dry tons of biomass feedstock. Of the counties included in the project region, Stoddard, 40% 8 7 $/acre 32.6% $150 $138 $137 6Mississippi, New Madrid and Scott counties in the Missouri have the highest amounts of available biomass residues. 30% 6 $100 $100 20% 4 3 $50 10% 7.0% 2 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% $0 0% 0 Sweet sorghum Miscanthus Triticale Others* Corn Soybeans Wheat Hay/Forage Rice Cotton One year Three years Five years Seven years Nine years More than nine yearsDistribution of Total Biomass Resources What length of contract would you prefer? Energy crops in which respondents were familiar. Respondents’ average expected compensation per acre for harvesting, storing and providing in Study Area field residue to a bioenergy producer. 18 17 Logging Residues 0.31% 16 15 $300 $140 $250 $119 14 $120 $250 $109 12 $221 12 Number of Respondents 11 $100 $200 $185 Wheat 10 $79 $77 9.31% $80 $71 $/acre $/acre $150 $138 $137 8 $60 6 $100 6 5 $100 Corn $40 $35 34.16% 4 $50 2 $20 2 $0 $0 0 Corn Soybeans Wheat Hay/Forage Rice Cotton Corn Soybeans Wheat Forage/Hay Rice Cotton Same 5% more 10% more 15% more 20% more Never No response Soybeans 42.04% Corn Cobs Respondents expected profitability of biomass com- Respondents average expected compensation per acres Respondents average expected compensation 11.94% pared to corn production. for harvesting, storing and providing field residue for providing field residue, not including to a bioenergy producer. harvesting and storing residue. Cotton Sorghum 0.02% 2.23% $160 $150 $60 $56 $140 $131 . No response Use of Burning by Farmers Surveyed $120 $50 $41 10% $100 $40 $35 $33 $/acre $76 $31 $/acre $80 Yes $65 $30 $59 $60 37% $60 $20 No burning Some burning $40 $20 $10 No 53% Corn 28 13 $0 Corn Soybeans Wheat Forage/Hay Rice Cotton $0 Corn Soybeans Wheat Rice Cotton Soybeans 30 0 Respondents’ estimated value of field residue harvest Average value respondents place on N,P and K removed Would you be willing to become a member Wheat 18 11 and storage. from field residue. investor in a custom harvesting business? Forage/Hay 11 0 Rice 9 3 Cotton 12 0