Prospects for dedicated energy crop production and attitudes towards agricultural straw use: the case of livestock farmers

Second generation biofuels utilising agricultural by-products (e.g. straw), or dedicated energy crops (DECs) produced on ‘marginal’ land, have been called for. A structured telephone survey of 263 livestock farmers, predominantly located in the west or ‘marginal’ upland areas of England captured data on attitudes towards straw use and DECs. Combined with farm physical and business data, the survey results show that 7.2% and 6.3% of farmers would respectively consider growing SRC and miscanthus, producing respective maximum potential English crop areas of 54,603 ha and 43,859 ha. If higher market prices for straw occurred, most livestock farmers would continue to buy straw. Reasons for not being willing to consider growing DECs include concerns over land quality, committing land for a long time period, lack of appropriate machinery, profitability, and time to financial return; a range of moral, land quality, production conflict and lack of crop knowledge factors were also cited. Results demonstrate limited potential for the production of DECs on livestock farms in England. Changes in policy support to address farmer concerns with respect to DECs will be required to incentivise farmers to increase energy crop production. Policy support for DEC production must be cognisant of farm-level economic, tenancy and personal objectives

Wheat straw availability for bioenergy in England

In an effort to meet energy demands while reducing carbon emissions, crop residues, such as wheat straw, have been investigated for their use as feedstock for biofuel production. In order to identify the feasibility of utilising crop residues as bioenergy feedstock, a postal survey was conducted to determine current farm business wheat straw use, destination and potential future supply. The survey responses showed a bias towards larger, more commercially-minded farms, therefore capturing a large area of straw production. Results demonstrated a wide range of responses to both current straw use and potential for the supply of straw to different markets in the future. Interestingly, even for a very generous payment for straw, 28.5% of straw currently chopped and incorporated would not be sold, suggesting that straw supply for bioenergy feedstock is likely to be more limited than previously assumed. However, higher prices for straw would encourage farmers to explore ways of increasing straw yield

Prospects for dedicated energy crop production and attitudes towards agricultural straw use: the case of livestock farmers

Second generation biofuels utilising agricultural by-products (e.g. straw), or dedicated energy crops (DECs) produced on ‘marginal’ land, have been called for. A structured telephone survey of 263 livestock farmers, predominantly located in the west or ‘marginal’ upland areas of England captured data on attitudes towards straw use and DECs. Combined with farm physical and business data, the survey results show that 7.2% and 6.3% of farmers would respectively consider growing SRC and miscanthus, producing respective maximum potential English crop areas of 54,603 ha and 43,859 ha. If higher market prices for straw occurred, most livestock farmers would continue to buy straw. Reasons for not being willing to consider growing DECs include concerns over land quality, committing land for a long time period, lack of appropriate machinery, profitability, and time to financial return; a range of moral, land quality, production conflict and lack of crop knowledge factors were also cited. Results demonstrate limited potential for the production of DECs on livestock farms in England. Changes in policy support to address farmer concerns with respect to DECs will be required to incentivise farmers to increase energy crop production. Policy support for DEC production must be cognisant of farm-level economic, tenancy and personal objectives

Optimal combinable and dedicated energy crop scenarios for marginal land

Modern biomass energy sources account for less than 2% of primary world energy supplies while major economies have enabled legislation that aims to increase bioenergy production. In response to controversies over first generation biofuel, it has been argued that ‘marginal land’ should be used to produce dedicated energy crops (DECs). However, defining marginality of agricultural land is complex, and moreover, DECs would have to out-compete current agricultural production in these areas. Utilising a bio-economic farm-level modelling approach we investigate the impact that crop yield penalties resulting from production in marginal land contexts have on financially optimal farm-level crop plans. Where farm businesses choose to de-invest in own farm machinery, yield reductions of less than 10% for winter wheat result in a financially optimal switch to 100% miscanthus production. By contrast, in the presence of own farm machinery, winter wheat yield penalties of 30% are required before 100% miscanthus production is financially optimal. However, under circumstances where DECs also suffer yield penalties on marginal land, the financially optimal crop mix includes combinable crops. The results demonstrate that the optimal crop mix is dependent upon the relative combinable and DEC yields, together with farm-level decisions towards machinery ownership. The focus of much policy attention relating to production of DECs on ‘marginal land’ is therefore argued to be incomplete. Policies which encourage farmers to de-invest in own farm machinery, or incentivise the purchase of specific DEC machinery, may play an important role in assisting the development of DEC production

Farm systems assessment of bioenergy feedstock production: Integrating bio-economic models and life cycle analysis approaches

Climate change and energy security concerns have driven the development of policies that encourage bioenergy production. Meeting EU targets for the consumption of transport fuels from bioenergy by 2020 will require a large increase in the production of bioenergy feedstock. Initially an increase in ‘first generation’ biofuels was observed, however ‘food competition’ concerns have generated interest in second generation biofuels (SGBs). These SGBs can be produced from co-products (e.g. cereal straw) or energy crops (e.g. miscanthus), with the former largely negating food competition concerns. In order to assess the sustainability of feedstock supply for SGBs, the financial, environmental and energy costs and benefits of the farm system must be quantified. Previous research has captured financial costs and benefits through linear programming (LP) approaches, whilst environmental and energy metrics have been largely been undertaken within life cycle analysis (LCA) frameworks. Assessing aspects of the financial, environmental and energy sustainability of supplying co-product second generation biofuel (CPSGB) feedstocks at the farm level requires a framework that permits the trade-offs between these objectives to be quantified and understood. The development of a modelling framework for Managing Energy and Emissions Trade-Offs in Agriculture (MEETA Model) that combines bio-economic process modelling and LCA is presented together with input data parameters obtained from literature and industry sources. The MEETA model quantifies arable farm inputs and outputs in terms of financial, energy and emissions results. The model explicitly captures fertiliser: crop-yield relationships, plus the incorporation of straw or removal for sale, with associated nutrient impacts of incorporation/removal on the following crop in the rotation. Key results of crop-mix, machinery use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per kg of crop product and energy use per hectare are in line with previous research and industry survey findings. Results show that the gross margin – energy trade-off is £36 GJ−1, representing the gross margin forgone by maximising net farm energy cf. maximising farm gross margin. The gross margin–GHG emission trade-off is £0.15 kg−1 CO2 eq, representing the gross margin forgone per kg of CO2 eq reduced when GHG emissions are minimised cf. maximising farm gross margin. The energy–GHG emission trade-off is 0.03 GJ kg−1 CO2 eq quantifying the reduction in net energy from the farm system per kg of CO2 eq reduced when minimising GHG emissions cf. maximising net farm energy. When both farm gross margin and net farm energy are maximised all the cereal straw is baled for sale. Sensitivity analysis of the model in relation to different prices of cereal straw shows that it becomes financially optimal to incorporate wheat straw at price of £11 t−1 for this co-product. Local market conditions for straw and farmer attitudes towards incorporation or sale of straw will impact on the straw price at which farmers will supply this potential bioenergy feedstock and represent important areas for future research