IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/midasp/98277.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Biomass Supply from Alternative Cellulosic Crops and Crop Residues: A Preliminary Spatial Bioeconomic Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Egbendewe-Mondzozo, Aklesso
  • Swinton, Scott M.
  • Izaurralde, R. Cesar
  • Manowitz, David H.
  • Zhang, Xuesong

Abstract

This paper introduces a spatial bioeconomic model for study of potential cellulosic biomass supply at regional scale. By modeling the profitability of alternative crop production practices, it captures the opportunity cost of replacing current crops by cellulosic biomass crops. The model draws upon biophysical crop input-output coefficients, price and cost data, and spatial transportation costs in the context of profit maximization theory. Yields are simulated using temperature, precipitation and soil quality data with various commercial crops and potential new cellulosic biomass crops. Three types of alternative crop management scenarios are simulated by varying crop rotation, fertilization and tillage. The cost of transporting biomass to a specific demand location is obtained using road distances and bulk shipping costs from geographic information systems. The spatial mathematical programming model predicts the supply of biomass and implied environmental consequences for a landscape managed by representative, profit maximizing farmers. The model was applied and validated for simulation of cellulosic biomass supply in a 9-county region of southern Michigan. Results for 74 cropping systems simulated across 39 sub-watersheds show that crop residues are the first types of biomass to be supplied. Corn stover and wheat straw supply start at $21/Mg and $27/Mg delivered prices. Perennial bioenergy crops become profitable to produce when the delivered biomass price reaches $46/Mg for switchgrass, $118/Mg for grass mixes and $154/Mg for Miscanthus giganteus. The predicted effect of the USDA Biomass Conversion Assistance Program is to sharply reduce the minimum biomass price at which miscanthus would become profitable to supply. Compared to conventional crop production practices in the area, the EPIC-simulated environmental outcomes with crop residue removal include increased greenhouse gas emissions and reduced water quality through increased nutrient loss. By contrast, perennial cellulosic biomass crops reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved water quality compared to current commercial cropping systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Egbendewe-Mondzozo, Aklesso & Swinton, Scott M. & Izaurralde, R. Cesar & Manowitz, David H. & Zhang, Xuesong, 2010. "Biomass Supply from Alternative Cellulosic Crops and Crop Residues: A Preliminary Spatial Bioeconomic Modeling Approach," Staff Paper Series 98277, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:98277
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.98277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/98277/files/StaffPaper2010-07.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.98277?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torre Ugarte, Daniel de la & Walsh, Marie E. & Shapouri, Hosein & Slinsky, Stephen P., 2003. "The Economic Impacts of Bioenergy Crop Production on U.S. Crop Production," Agricultural Economic Reports 33997, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Paul Gallagher & Mark Dikeman & John Fritz & Eric Wailes & Wayne Gauthier & Hosein Shapouri, 2003. "Supply and Social Cost Estimates for Biomass from Crop Residues in the United States," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(4), pages 335-358, April.
    3. Wallace E. Tyner & Farzad Taheripour, 2007. "Renewable Energy Policy Alternatives for the Future," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1303-1310.
    4. Argyris Kanellopoulos & Paul Berentsen & Thomas Heckelei & Martin Van Ittersum & Alfons Oude Lansink, 2010. "Assessing the Forecasting Performance of a Generic Bio‐Economic Farm Model Calibrated With Two Different PMP Variants," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 274-294, June.
    5. Ali Saleh & Philip W. Gassman & Catherine L. Kling, 2008. "Sny Magill Watershed Modeling Project: Final Report," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 01-sr95, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moon, Jin-Young & Apland, Jeffrey & Folle, Solomon & Mulla, David J., 2012. "Environmental Impacts of Cellulosic Feedstock Production: A Case Study of a Cornbelt Aquifer," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 125016, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Moon, Jin-Young & Apland, Jeffrey & Folle, Solomon & Mulla, David, 2016. "A Watershed Level Economic Analysis of Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstock Production with Consideration of Water Quality," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(3).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Doering, Otto C., III, 2005. "Agricultural/Renewable Contributions to U.S. Electricity Usage," Energy from Agriculture: New Technologies, Innovative Programs and Success Stories, December 14-15, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri 7626, Farm Foundation.
    2. Moon, Jin-Young & Apland, Jeffrey & Folle, Solomon & Mulla, David, 2016. "A Watershed Level Economic Analysis of Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstock Production with Consideration of Water Quality," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(3).
    3. Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2011. "Farmers’ Willingness to Grow Switchgrass as a Cellulosic Bioenergy Crop: A Stated Choice Approach," 2011 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2011, Banff, Alberta,Canada 109776, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Fewell, Jason E. & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2016. "Farmers' willingness to contract switchgrass as a cellulosic bioenergy crop in Kansas," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 292-302.
    5. Fewell, Jason & Lynes, Melissa & Williams, Jeffery & Bergtold, Jason, 2013. "Kansas Farmers Interest and Preferences for Growing Cellulosic Bioenergy Crops," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2013, pages 1-22, June.
    6. Rosburg, Alicia & Miranowski, John & Jacobs, Keri, 2013. "Cellulosic Biofuel Supply with Heterogeneous Biomass Suppliers: An Application to Switchgrass-based Ethanol," Staff General Research Papers Archive 36359, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Walsh, Marie E., 2005. "Non-Traditional Sources of Biomass Feedstocks," Energy from Agriculture: New Technologies, Innovative Programs and Success Stories, December 14-15, 2005, St. Louis, Missouri 7625, Farm Foundation.
    8. Mooney, Daniel F. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Tyler, Donald D. & Larson, James A., 2008. "Switchgrass Production in Marginal Environments: A Comparative Economic Analysis across Four West Tennessee Landscapes," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6403, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. van Grieken, M.E. & Roebeling, P.C. & Bohnet, I.C. & Whitten, S.M. & Webster, A.J. & Poggio, M. & Pannell, D., 2019. "Adoption of agricultural management for Great Barrier Reef water quality improvement in heterogeneous farming communities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1-8.
    10. Britz, Wolfgang & van Ittersum, Martin K. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M. & Heckelei, Thomas, 2012. "Tools for Integrated Assessment in Agriculture. State of the Art and Challenges," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(2), pages 1-26, August.
    11. Jacinto F. Fabiosa & John C. Beghin & Fengxia Dong & JAmani Elobeid & Simla Tokgoz & Tun-Hsiang Yu, 2010. "Land Allocation Effects of the Global Ethanol Surge: Predictions from the International FAPRI Model," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 687-706.
    12. Maung, Thein A. & McCarl, Bruce A., 2013. "Economic factors influencing potential use of cellulosic crop residues for electricity generation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 81-91.
    13. Chopin, Pierre & Doré, Thierry & Guindé, Loïc & Blazy, Jean-Marc, 2015. "MOSAICA: A multi-scale bioeconomic model for the design and ex ante assessment of cropping system mosaics," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 26-39.
    14. Denholm, Paul, 2006. "Improving the technical, environmental and social performance of wind energy systems using biomass-based energy storage," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 1355-1370.
    15. Paul Gallagher & Guenter Schamel & Hosein Shapouri & Heather Brubaker, 2006. "The international competitiveness of the U.S. corn-ethanol industry: A comparison with sugar-ethanol processing in Brazil," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 109-134.
    16. Zamani, Omid & Azadi, Hossein & Mortazavi, Seyed Abolghasem & Balali, Hamid & Moghaddam, Saghi Movahhed & Jurik, Lubos, 2021. "The impact of water-pricing policies on water productivity: Evidence of agriculture sector in Iran," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).
    17. Skevas, T. & Swinton, S.M. & Meehan, T.D. & Kim, T.N. & Gratton, C. & Egbendewe-Mondzozo, A., 2014. "Integrating agricultural pest biocontrol into forecasts of energy biomass production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 195-203.
    18. Arfini, Filippo & Donati, Michele & Marongiu, Sonia & Cesaro, Luca, 2012. "Farm production costs estimation trough PMP Models: an application in three Italian Regions," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124117, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    19. Christian Schader & Jürn Sanders & Thomas Nemecek & Nic Lampkin & Matthias Stolze, 2008. "A Modelling Approach for Evaluating Agri-Environmental Policies at Sector Level," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 1(1), pages 93-132.
    20. Finco, Adele & Padella, Monica & Spinozzi, Romina & Benedetti, Andrea, 2010. "Biofuel And Policy Alternatives: A Farm Level Analysis," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 188088, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:midasp:98277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/damsuus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.