[Carpenter Prairie Discussion] biomass

Wed Dec 16 12:31:47 CST 2009

All,
    Bill McGuire makes many good points concerning this very important biomass issue. Firstly we are all
stakeholders insofar as the directions others make for our state's resources. We need
everyone that has any interest in how this great big industry will effect--as well affect--our landscape, I encourage
everyone to become knowledgeable of what the options and choices "WE" can contribute in the
designing and funding stages. There are many vehicles on the launch pad with a payload of hopes, promises
and dreams that could fulfill the mission of being more green, but our wildlife may be black and blue. So,
please let us all pray to God for wisdom and discernment in granting us solutions at being good stewards
of our precious resources while we dance around the sun on the celestial ball we call home.          

From: Bill McGuire 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 10:05 AM

Subject: RE: biomass

CRP is a national program and the reasons it exists are complex.  There is not a lot of support at the national level (more broadly than conveyed below) to moving CRP away from the soil, water, wildlife and related purposes that have been legislated.  There is more support for the idea of CRP as a reservoir of biomass feedstocks if done as compatible use (i.e. harvest OK as long as the purposes of the program are preserved and in accordance with existing authorities which reflect negotiated position among many diverse groups) - there is less support as thinking moves CRP away from that paradigm.  Some of the USDA representatives receiving this message can correct me if wrong but biomass harvest from CRP has been possible since the 2002 Farm Bill.  It is also important to know that CRP has been an important emergency reservoir of forage that has benefited livestock producers in times of weather-related disaster (many, many times in just about every state with significant CRP) and that is only possible by way of CRP being what it is.  CRP has always been viewed as a reservoir of land that could quickly go back in crop production in the event of national emergency such as war (the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to make that call).  It won't be possible for CRP to be all of the above all the time and changing the magic of the formula that created and maintains CRP could erode flexibility for the land to be what the country needs when it is needed.

There is much uncertainty about the CRP and biofuel feedstock production but the following factors are very much at play:

·         Producing biofuel feedstocks on CRP or other land will accomplish little unless there is a processing or other facility to use it within a reasonable distance (50-75 miles is the distance usually discussed because to transport farther makes biofuel production uneconomical).

·         Industry (and often academia) continues to be focused on maximizing production from single-purpose monoculture production and that will drive things in the short term which could turn into the long term.  

·         Funding and economics will be the overriding factors for some time to come (as in money from programs, tax or other incentives and bottom-line profitability).

·         Change to CRP that benefits wildlife in one part of the U.S. can result in harm to wildlife if applied in another place.

A final word on CRP is simply to be aware that the playing field is very complicated as is the biofuels playing field.  Put them together and you have a 3-D chess game in terms of complexity and that is loaded with potential for unintended consequence.  My only advice is to seek to understand all the issues before coming to very many conclusions.

Bill

 All -

This article raises several interesting questions:

1) Do we want to optimize growth for harvestable biomass?  If so, GMO may
help.

2) Do we want to optimize growth for carbon sequestering in the root
system?  If so, then THIS branch of GMO research may not help, but others
could.

3) Do we want to mono-crop biomass to optimize productivity of a single
species?  I believe this to be THE key question.

Most of modern agriculture is designed around mono-cropping and driving
towards maximum yields for that crop.  Our equipment is tuned for it, our
mindsets are fixed on it.  I think we all are a bit guilty.  Who hasn't
looked at a recently hayed field and think "Isn't that pretty!" - it looks
like a big lawn! How many of us see that field and think "OMG - that's a
wildlife disaster!"???

As long as we are in a mono-crop/use artificial fertilizers to replace the
nutrients we harvest/maximize production and economic yield mindset,
things like GMO are going to have a play.  The use of GMO to tweak
fermentablility of corn is proof of that:  monocropped, specific target
usage, premium price for farmers, ethanol craze - you bet there was
acceptance of GMO "highly fermentable" corn seed.  Of course, you have to
buy that seed every year, so there was economic incentive for the bio-tech
companies to create the seed in the first place.

When we talk about using Prairie fields for bio-mass we have a couple of
problems.  First, its bio-diverse.  That means our equipment isn't as well
suited to harvest it as a highly tuned mono-culture tool would be. 
Second, its bio-diverse.  That means that some species are likely to be at
their prime for harvesting and fermentation at different times than other
species.
Third, its bio-diverse.  That means that any fixed harvesting schedule is
going to favor some species over others, eventually changing the mix in
the fields, which would require retuning our processes.  People don't like
such variability.  Fourth, its bio-diverse and those raising it are
wildlife conservation oriented.  That means that optimal harvest type and
techniques may well be in conflict with wildlife goals.  Think GRP - you
can't harvest until the middle of July (???), but most hay grass peaks in
nutrition in June.  July hay is still good (I have many, many bales of
it!), but its not as good as June hay (lower protein content, less
digestibility, etc.).  Fifth, its not sustainable.  You can't remove plant
mass and the associated nutrients on a regular basis without replacing
those elements not associated with rain and air.  Every good farmer knows
you want to bring hay to your fields for your cows to eat, not sell it to
your neighbor.  The first improves your fields, the second, however
slightly per year, degrades it.

So what to do?  Two options occur to me:

1) Create a sustainable program where items like mulch are added to fields
on a regular basis to replace nutrients removed as bio-mass.  NPR ran a
report on that option, as part of mulching to sequester carbon and
generate revenue (some industries would pay to dispose of their waste, our
mulch, on our fields), last week.  This would be key.  Perhaps it could
even be closed cycle, with the fermenting plants returning their waste
material to the farmer (which I think they currently sell as cattle
feed?).  In any case, some source of nutrients would be required, and
would have to be provided in a balance with nutrient removal for
sustainability.  That's just simple physics.

2) Shift from Biomass generation to meat generation.  The trick here is
providing equal grazing pressure to avoid the cattle favoring one species
over another.  Management Intensive Grazing would do that... but as the
name implies, is manpower intensive.  Supplemental mineral blocks and the
like would go a long way to replacing the nutrients taken off the land
when the cattle are sold.  Again, recycling the cattle waste, in the form
of bone-meal and similar products, would be required to make this practice
sustainable.

I do believe sustainability is the key: having a system in place where all
material going out is balanced with new material being added back into our
environments.  The good news is that the primary elements - CO2, water,
sunshine, even some nitrogen (bacterial nitrogen fixation and compliments
of lightening storms), come to us for free.  The rest (trace elements,
phosphates, calcium, potash, etc.) needs to be balanced or eventually our
fields will fail.

Currently there is a grant proposal pending that will form the Nature
Friendly Meat Producers Organization if approved.  It is my hope, as board
president of that organization, to consume some of its energy addressing
this issue as well as its primary goal of creating a value add marketing
label.

Thoughts?

Kevin

>
> FYI: Do we want GMO biomass? Some thought for our Natural Resources.    fo
>

From: Steve Flick [mailto:steveaflick at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:46 AM
To: 'Scott Woodbury'; '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'; Dave 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'; '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'; 'Jerry Kaiser'; 'Ken Struemph'; staceyg at missouri.edu
Subject: RE: biomass

I have been growing miscanthus for years as a feedstock for the bio refinery- although there is a FSA program about to be launched for spring 2010 for dedicated energy crop production- you still need a organization to purchase that crop- and refine it

As it relates to CRP- I believe you will have to get through policy of NWF/EDL/Nature Conservancy- to make that happen- they are big policy makers in  D.C.- pretty tough assignment 

Regards

Steve A Flick   Principal   Environmental Ecologist

Flick Seed Company

1764 N.W. 50 rd  P.O. Box 128

Kingsville, Mo. 64061

816-597-3822(o)

816-597-3663(f)

www.seedguys.com 

Think Green.  Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation

From: Gene Gardner 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:56 PM
To: Scott Woodbury ; 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 ; Dave 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 ; Tim Reinbott ; phil wire ; DeeCee Darrow ; John Murphy ; Dave Murphy ; Bill Bergh ; Bill McGuire ; Dwaine Gelnar ; Allen Powell ; JR Flores ; Eddie Hamill ; 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

Interesting discussions.  I have attached a summary about Miscanthus that we prepared here at MDC; through literature reviews and with the help of researchers and managers worldwide.  Several folks have become seriously concerned that even sterile hybrids (if they are truly sterile) could escape biomass production fields and become invasive.   I hope we will proceed with caution.

Gene Gardner

Wildlife Diversity Chief

Wildlife Division

573-522-4115, ext. 3353 (O)

573-353-2726 (cell)

573-526-4663 (Fax)

gene.gardner at mdc.mo.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Woodbury [mailto:Scott.Woodbury at mobot.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:32 AM
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; 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

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

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

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 3630 of my spam emails to date.
The Professional version does not have this message.

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.108/2565 - Release Date: 12/14/09 19:40:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.seaplace.org/pipermail/carpenter/attachments/20091216/aae439a8/attachment-0001.html>