[Carpenter Prairie Discussion] biomass

Tue Feb 2 17:22:59 CST 2010

I have one basic question that's been bothering me:

Are prairie grass yields somehow sustainable without replacing the
nutrients taken off the land?  When I say "sustainable" I mean over
decades.  Most know that one can't hay a field repeatedly without
fertilization, if you try, you "wear the field out".  I can see pulling
large quantities of bio-mass off a prairie a few times (just look at the
one across from Franks house any summer if you doubt that!), but what
impact would repeated harvesting have?  Yes, the macro nutrients, like
nitrogen, can be naturally replaced, but what about the phosphorus,
potash, calcium, and dozens if not hundreds of other minerals that are
removed when prairie grass is harvested but recycled when prairies are
burnt?

Kevin

> Here is a later version of some more of their work on this topic.  Happy
> reading.
>
> Rudi Roeslein
> CEO
> Roeslein & Associates, Inc.
> 9200 Watson Road, Suite 200
> St. Louis, MO  63126  USA
> [cid:image001.gif at 01CAA420.5CAD4B10]
> Main: +1 314 729 0055 x8807
> Direct: +1 314 270-8807
> Mobile: +1 314 280-3762
> Fax: +1 314 729 0070
>
> E-mail: rroeslein at roeslein.com<mailto:jhart at roeslein.com>
> www.roeslein.com<http://www.roeslein.com/>
> www.imt-mfg.com<http://www.imt-mfg.com/>
>
> From: Rudi Roeslein
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 11:04 AM
> To: 'Scott Woodbury'; Hamilton Native Outpost; Frank Oberle; 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
>
> Dr. David Tilman is the most cited scientist regarding this subject and
> from all of the information I have been able to gather probably not biased
> or influenced by the various interest groups.  I am including a science
> article on this subject.  The other factor that should be considered are
> the annual input costs, the maintenance costs, establishment costs and the
> long term cost to our environment.  How many invasive species do we need
> to experiment with before we figure out that maybe nature and God had it
> figured out with our prairie.
>  I recently attended a two day seminar on alternative bio fuels at the
> University of Illinois that ended up being a big promotional campaign for
> Miscanthus.  The establishment costs were cited as being $3000.00/ acre,
> and no real data on the total life cycle costs.   Yields of 40tons per
> acre were being tossed around but again no real long term data to provide
> total  life cycle costs. I just completed a 70 acre planting of 6
> different grasses and 25 forbs on my Putnam county farm and this will
> cost 10% of this Miscanthus figure and require very little in the way of
> additional input or maintenance cost in the future.  An occasional
> cutting in the early stages of development to prevent weed competition
> and a burn or grazing interruption once established.
> I believe the proven attributes of a bio diverse prairie must be
> considered in this new movement towards more invasive species to degrade
> our remaining marginal lands and eliminate more wildlife habitat.  The CO2
> sequestering capability of prairie grasses are getting studied and have
> been cited by the University of Minnesota after 20 years of studies.
> Their ability to store and filter water are also getting real scientific
> research and not just biased promotional advertisement.  Our soil erosion
> problem in Missouri is one of the worst in the country and could be helped
> significantly by a prairie root system that can be 15 ft deep and not only
> prevent soil erosion but provide some of the most fertile soil in the
> nation.  These attributes all have a real $ value and should be identified
> and quantified.  Lets all get more informed on this subject, especially
> those responsible for the direction we take in this exciting new field of
> alternative energies.
>
> Rudi Roeslein
> CEO
> Roeslein & Associates, Inc.
> 9200 Watson Road, Suite 200
> St. Louis, MO  63126  USA
> [cid:image001.gif at 01CAA420.5CAD4B10]
> Main: +1 314 729 0055 x8807
> Direct: +1 314 270-8807
> Mobile: +1 314 280-3762
> Fax: +1 314 729 0070
>
> E-mail: rroeslein at roeslein.com<mailto:jhart at roeslein.com>
> www.roeslein.com<http://www.roeslein.com/>
> www.imt-mfg.com<http://www.imt-mfg.com/>
>
> 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<http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102878250501&s=2761&e=001GCQRvDWWio9VqdgKxH5ka5XkUUSUmFWBbXSArjKjhTtaDOpWohH_PRRKv98bxvAubhTlGoXmbGveN7sRWa6GEz4ju1VmK5fz7-OqpEpiZsRNmEHUh-ZPKMJQ_9Lmsi62vUvUvzcSOTrOW1QTo1XQ0tfM52QbPr-asoVf5UQ5iEb8wjfsZ3fSYNt0wbMkB-ANWdUk6lb7IMctDHv-k97r1T8NzZddbx0Uo1mq8IRZa-emZtr0p6VBCbXhd-zPjLC9>.
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
>
>
> The information transmitted (including attachments) is
> covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
> 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is intended only for the person(s) or
> entity/entities to which it is addressed and might contain
> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
> retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking
> of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons
> or entities other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited.
> If you received this in error, please contact the sender and
> delete the material from any computer.
> _______________________________________________
> Carpenter mailing list
> Carpenter at mysticplains.org
> http://www.seaplace.org/mailman/listinfo/carpenter
>