Agricultural Biomass Energy

Add a Comment

8 Comments

Comment by Scott E. Justice on April 14, 2009 at 6:46am

Thanks Ferran and Jeff,
I have been making the rounds here in Nepal in the last week with donors and projects about getting support for this stove. After meeting with them I am even more surprised and a bit disgusted at how little they think about ag residues and confuse it with forestry based residues/energy.
Also, I agree with Jeff that farmers must keep this resource for their soil but we also need to figure out how much they must keep on their soil. But how much is necessary is the real question. How much for 1) stopping the decline of soil C and health; and 2) begin to reverse it. Also scientists also need to figure out how much residue is needed in different climatic zones but especially for us in Indo Gangetic Plains, the humid tropics. Especially in irrigated conditions I am sure that it is less than 50% of the residue necessary for this, leaving the other 50 or more percent for animals and energy. Small poor farmers will always value their resources differently than scientists, engineers, development specialists or richer farmers (anywhere in the world). Programs much demonstrate to them that residue is needed and necessary but for long term. But when you cannot feed your family properly in the short term the long term needs don't really seem important.

Comment by FERRAN MEINHARDT on April 7, 2009 at 2:42pm

It's nice to see we're a few more people thinking about...
I believe you're true not only about to balance extra productivity from the residue in the field, versus the cost of purchase of alternatives for the household. Any kind of complimentary or inverse balances may be highly interesting too: farmer's funds income from crop residues sale to industry/domestic heating, versus extra expenses for agrochemicals at field, total air pollution on each case, soil degradation of each option, dependance from chemical's suppliers, .. I'm been largely thinking about Scott's comment on Rational Residue Retention. Will talk to some local agronomic scientists too.

Comment by Jeff Esdaile on April 1, 2009 at 10:23am

I am all for leaving crop residues in the field after harvest of the crop. Evenly spread preferred.
A really significant factor in crop production is the residue remaining. Farmers the world over must do their utmost to keep this resource, and if possible not use it for livestock fodder, bedding, or fuel for the stove.
It is unfortunate that in many countries the crop residue has a value for these purposes.
If the farmer chooses to leave the residue in the field, then he must go to the market and purchase kerosene or wood to operate the stove. We must balance the extra productivity from the residue in the field, versus the cost of purchase of alternatives for the household.
In some no till systems, crops are grown solely for the residue (biomass crops) so the following crop has a higher potential. At the same time the soil is protected, and there are fewer weeds, and less moisture loss.
Rolf Derpsch is the guru on this system I am told.
In Australia, there is no problem to leave the crop residue in the field, as it has little value for alternative uses (except perhaps livestock feed in some cases). This is not the case in the Third World.
The main gripe Aussie farmers have about residue retention is the difficulty in some cases getting soil engaging tools and seed drills through it. However in recent years a large range of various seed drills etc. to handle this situation have been developed.

Comment by Trevor Cree on April 1, 2009 at 8:57am

Just to let you know that on the 30 March 2009 I was informed that a National Conference on "Plant Residue Management" will be held from 3rd to 6th of May 2009 in Shiraz-Fars province-I.R. of IRAN.

In recent years Iran has (I believe) banned the burning of crop residues (wheat straw etc.) in order to reduce air pollution. A great deal of good research work is being undertaken in the country to try to solve the residue problem including conservation agriculture (no-till etc.) and in identifying economic uses for residues. This Group is therefore very relevant to many countries.

Comment by FERRAN MEINHARDT on March 10, 2009 at 5:24pm

C gets lost from soil, back to atmosphere, and on promote someone to talk about climate changes and "greenhouse effect" (is this english raw translation from spanish valid?). Beside I don't follow radical positions from some environmentalists, I believe leading guys in Europe and US who prepare rules, laws, taxes and subventions, for biomass energy, don't know any word about. We are implements manufacturer, and are been promoting our various flail mowers to work on crop residues, mainly pruning rests from fruit trees, olive trees and wineyard, against local tradition to burn any crop residue, for many years. After so much time, promoting agronomic value of these residues, sometimes in close contact with any university or official research institute, we are pushed now by market (and european subventions and funds arriving at end users for that purpose) to develop collection devices for our mowers, to allow to take shredded residues out from fields, by sac, container or trailer, and to let them arrive in some local power plant, to get burned. This is like to stop and to forget any agronomic advance from the last 20 years, and on will need quite more energy to produce chemicals, and whatever on may need as substitute of organic material benefits on soil. Your sugestion on any kind of "Rational Residue Retention" to maintain and improve soil health would be helpfull. Here we have similar rate for rivers with any dam, as on fix by law which is "minimal ecological" water flow to be maintanied on river, to allow river ecological system to survive. Of course on have discussion about this rate, as all rivers and systems are different, but on may suppose, in case of carbon and agronomic soils, any kind of rate could be calculated, as a function from different climate factors and local use of each soil.

Comment by Scott E. Justice on March 10, 2009 at 2:43am

And I agree.
This is where scientists, engineers, extentionists need to help farmer identify how much residue is necessary to be retained to maintain/improve soil health. A friend of mine calls it 'rational residue retention'. In some irrigated systems this might mean only 10-15 cms of stubble left in the field. In rain fed and the humid tropics / sub-tropics probably more. There are additional agricultural issues as well. Right now in Nepal where these biomass stoves are spreading farmers are complaining that they are making even more scarce residues for animal fodder. Indeed, in much of the eastern gangetic plains this one issue .... great need of animal fodder for the poorer farmers mixed farming systems, contributes greatly to the loss of C in soils here.

Comment by FERRAN MEINHARDT on March 9, 2009 at 5:28pm

I'm agree about biomass energy distinctions. In southern Europe like Spain, it looks there is interesting business on to take out from fields all crop residues, and to transport them to burning facilities, where this stuff may get transformed into energy. This may work, but waht about all these cases where crop residues on soil are best solution to avoid erosion, to improve water efficiency in soil and to improve soil structure? What about all extra chemicals on will have to spread on soil, if on don't take any agronomic profit from residues on soil? Industrial energy crops may work (or not), but crop residues should be managed as organic fertilisers at areas where erosion is worst and real risk. Otherwise, biomass energy criteria will help to damage environment in place to protect it.

Comment by Scott E. Justice on March 2, 2009 at 3:55am

I added this group as I thought we need to make distinctions between biomass energy from residues verses industrial energy crops like maize (USA), sugarcane (Brazil), soybean (USA), rapeseed (UK/Europe), switchgrass (cellulostic ethanol), jetropha etc. Biomass energy from residues does not get its fair due especially in international development circles.
Instead of the Nepali woman with the Vietnamese model IRRI rice husk stove (of which there are over 20,000 adopted in the last two years due to the spike in petroleum energy prices- read more about this at http://naef-nepal.org/UpdatedReportonRHS.pdf ) I could have easily put as an illustrative photos the 100s of rice husk burning fluidized bed boilers here in Nepal or Agrilectric's 13 -megawatt power plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana that burns 300 tons of rice husk from nearby mills per day. Using that math, the 13 M tons of rice straw residue burned every October in Haryana and Punjab (See Science’s latest study on South Asia’s brown cloud) could power over 100 of such electric generating plants.
So I look forward to hearing about you’re all’s ideas and experiences and arguments for and against agricultural biomass energy.