[Carpenter Prairie Discussion] biomass

[Tim Reinbott]

The cost of planting the miscanthus from rhizomes or plants will be a major factor along with the zero value miscanthus has for livestock.  Our research in Missouri shows that it take three years for miscanthus to reach full yield potential of 12 tons/acre.  The first two years are less than switchgrass.

Tim
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Woodbury 
  To: Hamilton Native Outpost ; Frank Oberle ; Rudi Roeslein ; Carol Davit ; Kevin Carpenter ; Jon Wingo 
  Cc: Ben Duffield ; Amy Buechler ; Mervin Wallace ; John Hoskins ; John Burk ; John Knudsen ; Steve Mowry ; David Erickson ; Denny Donnell ; Wayne Morton ; George Seek ; Kelly Srigley Werner ; Linda Tossing ; Alan Leary ; Ted Cooper ; Susan Hazelwood ; Mike Currier ; Steve Heyling ; Andrew Forbes ; James Trager ; Tim Barksdale ; Reinbott, Timothy M. ; phil wire ; DeeCee Darrow ; John Murphy ; Dave Murphy ; Bill Bergh ; Bill McGuire ; Dwaine Gelnar ; Allen Powell ; JR Flores ; Eddie Hamill ; Gene Gardner ; Tim Banek ; Darlene Johnson ; Karen Brinkman ; Brent Jamison ; Keith Jackson ; Aaron Jeffries ; Jean Herman ; Steve Bruckerhoff ; Steve Flick ; Jerry Kaiser ; Ken Struemph ; Stacey, Gary 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:32 AM
  Subject: RE: biomass


  This sounds great as long as long as landowners opt for a diverse planting in CRP. Right now the research on biomass is showing that sterile hybrid miscanthus yields 2-3 times as much biomass as native switchgrass, and therefore could bring in more money. That’s comparing a pure stand of switchgrass to a pure stand of miscanthus. Now days’ CRP isn’t a pure stand of switchgrass. My fear is that landowners will drop CRP when they see that they can make more money growing miscanthus? Of course this can’t happen until Miscanthus production becomes mechanized. Please tell me otherwise. I don’t like the idea of miscanthus replacing CRP.

   

  Scott

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Hamilton Native Outpost [mailto:hamilton at train.missouri.org] 
  Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 1:56 PM
  To: 'Frank Oberle'; 'Rudi Roeslein'; 'Carol Davit'; 'Kevin Carpenter'; 'Jon Wingo'
  Cc: 'Ben Duffield'; 'Amy Buechler'; 'Mervin Wallace'; 'John Hoskins'; 'John Burk'; 'John Knudsen'; 'Steve Mowry'; 'David Erickson'; 'Denny Donnell'; 'Wayne Morton'; 'George Seek'; 'Kelly Srigley Werner'; 'Linda Tossing'; 'Alan Leary'; 'Ted Cooper'; 'Susan Hazelwood'; 'Mike Currier'; 'Steve Heyling'; 'Andrew Forbes'; James Trager; Scott Woodbury; 'Tim Barksdale'; 'Tim Reinbott'; 'phil wire'; 'DeeCee Darrow'; 'John Murphy'; 'Dave Murphy'; 'Bill Bergh'; 'Bill McGuire'; 'Dwaine Gelnar'; 'Allen Powell'; 'JR Flores'; 'Eddie Hamill'; 'Gene Gardner'; 'Tim Banek'; 'Darlene Johnson'; 'Karen Brinkman'; 'Brent Jamison'; 'Keith Jackson'; 'Aaron Jeffries'; 'Jean Herman'; 'Steve Bruckerhoff'; 'Steve Flick'; 'Jerry Kaiser'; 'Ken Struemph'; staceyg at missouri.edu
  Subject: RE: biomass

   

  CRP as we have known it in the past may have been a fescue field or a rank stand of native grasses with little diversity.  Conservation is ready to step up to the next level and create rare and declining habitat.  To marry biofuels with wildlife conservation has the added benefit of bringing disturbance into the picture.  Disturbance is important to grasslands; fire, herbivores, and climatic extremes once acted as disturbance factors.  The use of the mowing on the biofuel ¼ or 1/3 would be a forn of disturbance as would the burning on another ¼ or 1/3.  Some of the grassland wildlife is even dependent on this disturbance.  I think this has lots of potential.

   

  Amy Hamilton

  Hamilton Native Outpost  

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: Frank Oberle [mailto:foberle at nemr.net] 
  Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:00 PM
  To: Rudi Roeslein; Carol Davit; Kevin Carpenter; Jon Wingo
  Cc: Ben Duffield; Amy Hamilton; Amy Buechler; Mervin Wallace; John Hoskins; John Burk; John Knudsen; Steve Mowry; Amy Buechler; David Erickson; Denny Donnell; Wayne Morton; George Seek; John Burk; Kelly Srigley Werner; Linda Tossing; Steve Mowry; Alan Leary; Ted Cooper; Susan Hazelwood; Mike Currier; Steve Heyling; Andrew Forbes; James Trager; Scott Woodbury; Tim Barksdale; Tim Reinbott; phil wire; DeeCee Darrow; John Murphy; Dave Murphy; Bill Bergh; Bill McGuire; Dwaine Gelnar; Allen Powell; JR Flores; Eddie Hamill; Dwaine Gelnar; Gene Gardner; Tim Banek; Darlene Johnson; Karen Brinkman; Brent Jamison; Keith Jackson; Aaron Jeffries; Jean Herman; Steve Bruckerhoff; Steve Flick; Jerry Kaiser; Ken Struemph; Andrew Forbes; staceyg at missouri.edu
  Subject: Fw: biomass

   

   

   


   

  Policy and Policymakers


  In Washington, the popularity of the USDA's Biomass Crop Assistance Program has soared, with the number of qualifying facilities now exceeding 280. The Biomass Crop Assistance Program assists agricultural and forest land owners and operators with matching payments for the amount paid for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of eligible material by a qualified Biomass Conversion Facility.

   

   

  Conservationist,

         I believe the time has come here in Missouri to begin a very strategic plan

  on how we can become not only serious players in the biomass industry, but how can

  we improve wildlife habitat at the same time. I will emphatically state there is

  known scientific evidence that will validate this claim--especially all CRP lands that

  currently--and maybe futuristically--are enrolled in a plant material--like fescue and 

  brome--that has very little environmental benefits. 

       In order to move an idea forward there has to be action. And there is no action

  until there is movement. My passion and cause for our state is to add wildlife,

  environmental and green energy benefits for Northern Missouri. How do we add

  value to an economically depressed area? Firstly, like a Doctor's oath of promise 

  for receiving his degree: "Never to do Harm."  We need to emulate nature's blueprint

  and follow a path of least resistance. It is always more difficult to bend mother

  nature to our wants, than it is to assimilate to an ideology that heeds to bending

  with her.

        One known truth evident here in N. Missouri is that we can grow native grass and

  broadleaf legumes. Cellulosic's greatest asset is that indigenous plant material suited to the soil and climate adds to the success of the project. We have the potential of

  rebuilding CRP with an ecologically sound plant material that will boost biodiversity 

  and reviving rural economies. 

       Please do not take my word for any of this, use the science at hand. There

  are entrepreneurs willing and hoping for such an opportunity. Does anyone 

  out there have any suggestions on where or how to begin this endeavor? We have 

  nearly 1.5 million acres of CRP here in Missouri. One plan could be that once

  the re-established CRP acres of any single tract of ground was deemed ready

  to be engaged into a regime of biomass/wildlife management rotation, one forth to one

  third of the tract would be allowed to be harvested in the months of October

  through January. There would be no rental penalty for the landowner to pay if the plant material was used in some biomass project. The next designated portion to be

  harvested--rather it be one third to one forth--would be eligible for a late spring burn 

  to encourage both forb growth and grass development. When there is plenty of

  thatch build-up, there are less forbs that will have vigorous growth. We have

  experienced this fact in our production fields. It works like this. Plants store starches

  and sugars in their roots systems. In early spring, if there is a canopy of thatch which

  creates enormous shade, when the emerging plant sends it first two basal leaves 

  for light scouting, perennial and long lived native plants will not take the risk of

  expending large amounts of root reserves to overtake the canopy--just too risky. 

      There are many possibilities that could be worked out. Currently, though, I believe

  we could be passing on a great opportunity to rebuild our landscape to a vegetation that is suited to attract and sustain our rare and declining wildlife, but too, the biomass entrepreneurs. It also would be good for pollinators, producers and weaning our

  nation's dependency on imported fossil fuels. I'm not saying the above is the perfect set of blueprints for a run away success story, however, I can say with wisdom and discernment that CRP could use a make-over that gives the customer--our hard working American taxpayers--real dividends for their investment.

       In the beginning of the Conservation Reserve Program, the goals of preventing soil erosion and cleaning up our streams was an industrious and very successful 

  conservation accomplishment. We have progressed immensely in the field of understanding and implementing native plant communities and the adverse affects of toxic and invasive fescue. The research going on at NRCS's Plant Material Center and 

  MU's Bradford Farm will yield much to the enhancement of a myriad of wildlife and biomass concerns. Thanks to all those partners supporting these exigencies.   fo

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.seaplace.org/pipermail/carpenter/attachments/20091215/76d0cc70/attachment-0001.html>