[Carpenter Prairie Discussion] biomass
Reinbott, Timothy M.
reinbottt at missouri.edu
Wed Feb 3 07:11:23 CST 2010
Essentially yes, if the biomass is harvested in the fall and burned returning the ash back to the land should keep most nutrients at acceptable levels. How often? I am not really sure, however I would base it on soil test levels and watch the nutrient levels.
Ash content will reflect the total content of the plants so along with P and K, Calcium will be quite high and some Magnesium and micronutrients.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Timothy Barksdale
To: Reinbott, Timothy M.
Cc: Kevin Carpenter ; Carpenter Prairie in the Mystic Plains COA ; Scott Woodbury ; Hamilton Native Outpost ; Frank Oberle ; Carol Davit ; Jon Wingo ; John Knudsen ; Jean Herman ; Aaron Jeffries ; Dwaine Gelnar ; Steve Mowry ; Karen Brinkman ; John Hoskins ; Bill McGuire ; Ted Cooper ; Steve Bruckerhoff ; Wayne Morton ; Denny Donnell ; Bill Bergh ; Tim Banek ; phil wire ; Dave Murphy ; Alan Leary ; Susan Hazelwood ; Ben Duffield ; JR Flores ; Darlene Johnson ; Mervin Wallace ; DeeCee Darrow ; Steve Flick ; Kelly Srigley Werner ; Allen Powell ; Gene Gardner ; Amy Buechler ; David Erickson ; George Seek ; John Burk ; Andrew Forbes ; Linda Tossing ; Stacey, Gary ; Eddie Hamill ; James Trager ; Steve Heyling ; Keith Jackson ; Jerry Kaiser ; Mike Currier ; Ken Struemph ; Brent Jamison
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 5:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Carpenter Prairie Discussion] biomass
So Mr Reinbott,
To keep this system intact you are only needing to return the ash to the prairie. How frequently would this be needed and in what concentration. My thinking is that the ash is rather concentrated with the Potassium and Phosphorus - No?
Too heavy or two frequent would create additional problems as more may not be better. Additionally, what other elemental (or other things) residues could be concentrated in the ashes?
Tim
Timothy R. Barksdale
Birdman Productions L.L.C.
& MundoAveLoco! L.L.C.
P.O. Box 1124
65 Mountain View Dr.
Choteau, MT 59422
Home Office: 406-466-2111
birdman-hd -at- 3riversdbs -dot-net
On Feb 2, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Reinbott, Timothy M. wrote:
Kevin,
That is a valid question. Native warm season grasses such as Switchgrass remove 9 lbs P205 and 46 lbs K2O per ton removed for hay. So 5 tons would be 45 P and 230 lbs K which is similar if you took off the corn grain and stover. However, the native grasses have extremely deep roots and are mining minerals from a very deep profile-6 ft or more. This is why we hardly ever see a response to Native grasses to P and K in the glacial till soils of Central and North MO. Ozarks and SW MO, maybe not.
If harvested for biofuel after dormancy (October or later) then much of the P and K is recycled back to the roots and very little is removed. This is true for most perennial crops.
So in a nutshell, yes if you harvest these prairies for hay and do not return the manure then you will remove a tremendous amount of nutrients from the soil and could get into trouble within a decade or two. For biofuel production, a much slower process but a need to return the nutrients from the ashes.
Hope this helps,
Tim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Carpenter" <kevinc at mysticplains.org>
To: "Carpenter Prairie in the Mystic Plains COA" <carpenter at mysticplains.org>
Cc: "Scott Woodbury" <scott.woodbury at mobot.org>; "Hamilton Native Outpost" <hamilton at train.missouri.org>; "Frank Oberle" <foberle at nemr.net>; "Carol Davit" <davitleahy at earthlink.net>; "Jon Wingo" <djmaint at aol.com>; "John Knudsen" <john.knudsen at mdc.mo.gov>; "Jean Herman" <jean.herman at mo.usda.gov>; "Aaron Jeffries" <aaron.jeffries at mdc.mo.gov>; "Dwaine Gelnar" <dwaine.gelnar at mo.usda.gov>; "Reinbott, Timothy M." <ReinbottT at missouri.edu>; "Steve Mowry" <stevem4444 at aol.com>; "Karen Brinkman" <karen.brinkman at mo.usda.gov>; "John Hoskins" <john.hoskins at mdc.mo.gov>; "Bill McGuire" <bill.mcguire at mdc.mo.gov>; "Ted Cooper" <ted at tswllc.com>; "Steve Bruckerhoff" <steve.bruckerhoff at mo.usda.gov>; "Wayne Morton" <wayne2946 at yahoo.com>; "Denny Donnell" <hddonnell at hotmail.com>; "Bill Bergh" <bill.bergh at mdc.mo.gov>; "Tim Banek" <tim.banek at mdc.mo.gov>; "phil wire" <phw222 at googlemail.com>; "Dave Murphy" <dmurphy at confedmo.org>; "Alan Leary" <alan.leary at modot.mo.gov>; "Susan Hazelwood" <hazelwoods at mchsi.com>; "Ben Duffield" <duffieldben at yahoo.com>; "JR Flores" <jr.flores at mo.usda.gov>; "Darlene Johnson" <darlene.johnson at mo.usda.gov>; "Mervin Wallace" <mowldflrs at socket.net>; "DeeCee Darrow" <deecee.darrow at mdc.mo.gov>; "Steve Flick" <steveaflick at earthlink.net>; "Kelly Srigley Werner" <kelly_srigleywerner at fws.gov>; "Allen Powell" <allen.powell at mo.usda.gov>; "Gene Gardner" <gene.gardner at mdc.mo.gov>; "Amy Buechler" <abuechler at confedmo.org>; "David Erickson" <david.erickson at mdc.mo.gov>; "George Seek" <seekg at grm.net>; "John Burk" <jburknwtf at ktis.net>; "Andrew Forbes" <andrew.forbes at mdc.mo.gov>; "Linda Tossing" <ltossing at aol.com>; "Stacey, Gary" <staceyg at missouri.edu>; "Eddie Hamill" <eddie.hamill at mo.usda.gov>; "James Trager" <james.trager at mobot.org>; "Steve Heyling" <ashlandbirdman at yahoo.com>; "Keith Jackson" <keith.jackson at mdc.mo.gov>; "Jerry Kaiser" <jerry.kaiser at mo.usda.gov>; "Mike Currier" <mike.currier at dnr.mo.gov>; "Ken Struemph" <ken.struemph at dnr.mo.gov>; "Brent Jamison" <brent.jamison at mdc.mo.gov>; "Tim Barksdale" <curlew at 3riversdbs.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Carpenter Prairie Discussion] biomass
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.seaplace.org/pipermail/carpenter/attachments/20100203/16184f0f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Carpenter
mailing list