Grasses As Energy

The Potential for Perennial Grasses as Energy
Crops in Organic Agriculture
Ecological Agriculture I
SOCRATES European Common Curriculum
(05 85 00)
Project Presented to
John Roy Porter
by
Frdric Thriault (ED5149)
Hana Javorsk (ED5166)
Kateina sov (ED5167)
Mervyn Tucker (ED5142)
Thomas Gulholm-Hansen (L10321)
The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University

Denmark
Department of Agricultural Sciences
Friday May 23rd, 2003
ii
The Potential for Perennial Grasses as Energy

Crops in Organic Agriculture
___________________________
Kateina sov
___________________________
Thomas Gulholm-Hansen
___________________________
Hana Javorsk
___________________________
Frdric Thriault
___________________________
Mervyn Tucker
iii
To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the

land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will resolve
in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity
which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and
developed.
Theodore Roosevelt
Given how easily the sun can get people out of their homes, one is
led to believe that solar energy could get almost anything to
function
Anonymous
Without the sun, no shadows

Without the sun, no colours
Without the sun, no life
Without the sun, nothing
Claude Monet
iv
CONTENTS
CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................v
List of Appendices................................................................................................................. vii
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................ 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 4
1. Basic concepts ................................................................................................................. 8
1.1. Biomass and Energy concepts................................................................................ 8
1.1.1. Biomass what is it?............................................................................................... 8
1.1.2. Biomass categories ............................................................................................... 8
1.1.3. How Do Plants Accumulate Energy - Photosynthesis ..................................... 12
1.1.3.1. Differences between C3 and C4 Plants........................................................ 13
1.1.4. Properties of Biomass......................................................................................... 14
1.1.5. Energy, Exergy, Emergy .................................................................................... 15
1.2. Ecological agriculture concepts ................................................................................ 18
1.2.1. The Principles ..................................................................................................... 18
1.2.2. Why Perennial Grasses in Ecological Agriculture? ......................................... 20
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 21
2.
Perennial Grasses as Energy Crops.............................................................................. 22

2.1. Production of Perennial Grasses ............................................................................... 23
2.1.1. Characteristics of The Plants.............................................................................. 24
2.1.1.1. Miscanthus (Miscanthus spp.) .................................................................... 24
2.1.1.2. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) ......................................... 27
2.1.1.3. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) ........................................................... 29
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 34
2.1.2. Cultural Practices................................................................................................ 35
2.1.2.1. Site Preparation............................................................................................ 35
2.1.2.2. Crop Establishment ..................................................................................... 36
2.1.2.3. Fertilization.................................................................................................. 40
2.1.2.4. Weeds, Pests and Diseases.......................................................................... 44
2.1.2.5. Harvest and Storage .................................................................................... 46
2.1.2.6. Other Considerations................................................................................... 53
2.1.3. Yields of Crop in Biomass ................................................................................. 55
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 58
2.2. Environmental Impacts From Growing Perennial Grasses ..................................... 59
2.2.1. Impacts on Soil ................................................................................................... 60
2.2.1.1. Soil Organic Matter..................................................................................... 60
2.2.1.2. Soil Erosion.................................................................................................. 62
2.2.2. Impacts on Biodiversity...................................................................................... 63

2.2.2.1 Soil Microbial Biodiversity ......................................................................... 63
2.2.2.2 Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 64
2.2.3. Other Impacts...................................................................................................... 66
2.2.3.1. Water Quality Impacts ................................................................................ 66
2.2.3.2. CO2 Emissions............................................................................................. 68
2.2.3.3. Nitrous Oxides............................................................................................. 69
2.2.3.3.
Energy Grasses and Acid Rain............................................................ 69
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 71
2.3. Processing, Conversion into Energy......................................................................... 72
2.3.1. Biomass Characteristic ....................................................................................... 73
2.3.2. On-Farm .............................................................................................................. 76
2.3.2.1 Heating With Grasses................................................................................... 76
2.3.2.2 Pelletization of Grasses for Heat Generation.............................................. 79
2.3.3. Off-Farm Use of Perennial Grasses................................................................... 82
2.3.3.1 Gasification................................................................................................... 82
2.3.3.2 Ethanol Production ....................................................................................... 83
2.3.3.3 Combustion for Heat and Power Generation.............................................. 84
2.3.3.4. Combined Bioethanol, Biogas, Heat and Power Production.................... 86
2.3.3. Energy Utilization and Discussion .................................................................... 87
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 88
3. Opinions on Energy Crops................................................................................................ 88
3.1. Researchers................................................................................................................. 89
3.1.1. Perception of the Present Situation.................................................................... 90
3.1.2. Perception of the Future ..................................................................................... 92
3.2. Advisors...................................................................................................................... 93
3.3. Organic Farmers......................................................................................................... 94
3.4. Power Plants and Power Companies ........................................................................ 96
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 98
4.
Societal, Economical and Political Considerations..................................................... 99

4.1. What Denmark Could Obtain From PRG .............................................................. 100
4.2. Ready to Pay............................................................................................................. 101
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 104
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 105

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 111
vi
List of Appendices
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Appendix VI
Appendix VII
Appendix VIII
Appendix IX
Appendix X
Appendix XI
: Units and Conversion Figures

: Summary of Energy Policy in Denmark
: Different Photosynthetic Pathways
: Energy Content, Mass and Volume for Different Fuels
: Approximately Positions of our Contacts, Throughout the Country
: Questionnaire for Researchers
: Questionnaire for Organic Advisors
: Questionnaire for Organic Farmers
: Questionnaire for a Representative from a Power Plant
: Questionnaire for a Representative from a Power Company
: Questionnaire for a Representative from the Finish Power Plant
vii
PREFACE
Context
Because of the commitments undertaken by Denmark in the Kyoto Protocol, the
country has to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions levels by 21% of year 1990 levels,
between 2008 to 2012 (Finansministeriet, 2003). In order to achieve these objectives,
Denmark will need to do more than just cutting back on the use of fossil fuels and/or
buying CO2 quota from other countries. Sustainable energy production from renewable
resources is seen as crucial for Denmark to meet its long term energy objectives.
Danish society will have to face the challenge of developing new and renewable
energy sources. It is believed that biomass could be a good substitute for fossil fuels. In
respect to Danish conditions, which type/s of biomass is/are most appropriate to develop?
At what level should the development occur? What is the current situation in Denmark?
How much does society want to invest in these new alternatives? What are the possible
environmental consequences of the development of the biomass industry? What is the
role of ecological agriculture in these developments?
Course and Project

This project is a term project from 5 students of various origins studying ecological
agriculture in a SOCRATES course at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University
in Copenhagen. It is aimed at integrating the various aspects of ecological agriculture
through the presentation of a document exploring an issue from a crop production
perspective. The main themes covered in the course will be represented in the document.
Those themes are: systems ecology, biodiversity, machinery, and crop management.
Project Goals
More precisely the project aims at testing the hypothesis that perennial rhizomatous
grasses have a potential for energy production in ecological agriculture. Specific
goals of the project include :
Dressing a portrait of the present situation of the biomass industry in Denmark

Show where the organic movement stands facing this developing industry and
identify challenges
Gather up to date scientific knowledge about the agronomic and environmental
aspects of production of perennial grasses for Denmark, and identify further areas
for research
Assess the potential for the development of these new crops in organic agriculture
in Denmark
Look at potential future developments, and determine necessary conditions to
allow them in Denmark
Methodology
Use of Sources
Literature searches have always provided considerable theoretical and practical
information, and for this reason are tools to initiate further study. The distilled knowledge
of accumulated research from many expert sources is indispensable. A small number of
masters and doctoral theses were consulted as well as the extensive library resources at
KVL, which include many agricultural and scientific journals.
Professors and other staff have, within time constraints been asked for their valuable
advice and knowledge. The departmental expertise, particularly with regards to energy
crop, was gathered and used alongside consultations with contacts through the academic
network. The ecological agricultural course professor John R. Porter was our supervisor.
An increasing amount of scientific and governmental publications are now available
through the world wide web. Internet was used to access data from a diverse range of
sources including many Danish public agencies related to Energy or Agriculture. Also
trade literature, both technical information and advertisements, was examined particularly
with regards to processing aspects of energy crops.
Interviewing people is probably the best way to obtain the most recent information.
We interviewed several persons by e-mail, phone and video-conference, to gather useful
information for this project. Some of the interviews were performed so they could be
used in our interview report, others were simple phone calls aimed at clarifying precise
questions. Further details on how we did the interviews in each case, is available in the
interview section.
Project Exclusions
It is not possible given time restraints, available resources, and choice of focus to
examine in great detail the economic and political aspects of perennial energy grasses
production. The issues are very complex, more so because of a general restructuring of
agriculture across the European Economic Community, the direct subsidisation of
renewable energies within Denmark, and the many other priorities of governments in
general.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We want to thank the following persons, who helped us with this project in different
ways:
Tommy Dalgaard and Uffe Jrgensen, researchers working at DIAS, who provided us
with background information for the project, and gave us their perceptions, as
researchers, on the energy crop situation in Denmark.
Per Klster and Sven Nybo Rasmussen, organic farmers who could potentially grow
perennial grasses as energy crops. They helped us to understand and describe the farmers
perceptions on energy crops.
Erik Fog and Carsten Hvelplund, organic advisors, who gave their points of view on
energy crops in Danish ecological agriculture.
Flemming Plovmann Srensen, Jens Nybo Jensen, Marianne Grydgaard, Tapani
Tyynel and Thomas Scott Lund. They are all working in the energy producing
industry, and provided us with technical information, as well as the industrys perception
on energy crops.
Carsten Vesthammer, working at ALFAX A/S, and provided us with information on the
possibilities for pelletization of perennial grasses in Denmark.
Sven Sommer, senior scientist at the research centre Bygholm, who provided
information about top-dressing of manures and ammonia volatilisation.
Dana Chevalier who helped us in the revision process.
Finally, we would also like to thanks all the teachers at the course Ecological
Agriculture, especially our supervisor John R. Porter and the course secretary Mette
Zippora to whom appreciation and grateful thanks are due.
INTRODUCTION
The issue of energy production and consumption has received high profile attention in
recent years because the unsustainability of the current use of fossil fuels has been
recognized. The rate of carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels is
believed to contribute towards global warming. It was the Toronto Conference in 1988
that first brought this issue to public awareness (Information Unit on Climate Change,
1993). There are also major concerns about the release of other bio-toxic pollutants such
as sulphur, and nitrous oxides which are acidic when they come in contact with water.
Coupled with this is the very real prospect of significant oil shortages by 2050
(Johannson, 1993). The contribution that renewable energies can make to solve these
problems has been recognized at both the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (known as the Rio summit) in 1992, and the Kyoto Conference in 1997
(United Nations, 1997).
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change established a number of requirements incumbent on nations to promote
sustainable development (United Nations, 1997). Within the agreed protocols signed by
105 countries it was expressly stated that members would ensure: Research on, and
promotion, development and increased use of, new and renewable forms of energy, of
carbon sequestration technologies and of advanced and innovative environmentally
sound technologies (United Nations, 1997) It was therefore recognized that priority
would be given to renewable energies.
Renewable energies are sustainable in so far as their use is replaceable. Providing
there is a suitable infrastructure in place, the energies can be perpetually renewed
although they may need processing into a useable form. Their production or use does not
degrade the environment. Examples of renewable energies are wind, hydropower, solar,
geothermal and biomass energy. Biomass is accumulated growth of plant material and
some may be specifically grown crops - energy crops - harvested to produce energy.
Under the Kyoto Protocol it was clear that the increased use of energy crops to lock
up carbon, instead of it being released to the atmosphere, would be encouraged through
the EEC as a means of aiding carbon sequestration in addition to providing an essential
alternative energy source (EUROPA, 2000). Forests are one of a number of ways of
implementing carbon sequestration as it becomes incorporated into the structure of wood
itself. Denmark proposes doubling the area under forestry to 12% of land area by 2030
(Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1999). Agricultural Energy Crops are also
seen as a direct means of sustainable energy production.
Security of energy supply is very important to governments. There are specific targets
for renewable energies within Denmark that were formulated in an Energy Plan called
Energy 21, in 1996 (Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, 1996). It aimed at
stabilizing energy consumption, while streamlining energy production and using
renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. The objective is to limit energy consumption to
no more than 800 peta joules (PJ = 1015 J) per annum (for more information about units
used in the document consult Appendix I). Alongside Kyoto obligations to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 50% of year 2000 amounts by 2030 (United Nations, 1997),
Denmark was the first country in the world to introduce a market for carbon dioxide
quotas which place limits on emissions by the energy sector (Joyce, 2002).
Denmark today requires clean energy to avoid pollution in addition to providing
energy security. Policies had favored wind technologies, however it is not possible to
store electricity, and the wind can be intermittent. Consequently energy crops are favored
by both electricity producers and government. Energy is already stored (embodied) in the
biomass and theoretically it enables the Kyoto targets for CO2 emission reductions to be
met. Energy crops can be grown in areas where they can be easily harvested and
transported to power stations. Local sourcing for local combined heat and power plants is
also possible. The national policy is therefore based on an objective to attain
approximately 20 % of renewable energy sources coming from energy crops by 2030
(Gylling, 2001a).
The share of renewable energies in meeting these targets particularly from Biomass is
indicated in the table 1 below.
Table 1: Targets for the Use of Renewable Energy in Denmark (in PJ). Energy 21
Energy source
2000
2005
2010
2030
Wind power
9
14
23
60
Other
1
3
4
29
Biomass
77
85
96
146
- Solid municipal waste
23
23
23
22
- Straw
25
27
28
34
- Wood chips
24
26
27
24
- Energy crops
0
0
5
46
- Biogas
5
9
13
20
Total
87
102
123
235
% of total consumption
10-11
12-14
17-19
35
Source: Gylling (2001a).
Energy crops are anticipated to have a dramatic increase in terms of total production.
To meet this target, production of energy crops will require significant agricultural land
area, and arguments that land is needed for food production could arise. However the
amount of land required for food production in the industrialized world has been
declining since 1950. It was due to increased productivity resulting from greater
intensification of agricultural resources. General Agreement on Trade (GAT) policies are
also opening up markets in the industrialized world to produce from the developing
world. The overproduction (mainly of cereals) within the European Union (EU) has been
causing problems for the authorities in price support. Accordingly, the instrument of setaside was introduced across member states including Denmark, to take land out of food
crop production. Within the European Economic Community (EEC), according to
Johannson (1993), 15 million hectares of land will have to be taken out of production.
Some EEC projections even consider that between 50 and 100 million hectares will be
taken out of production by 2015. The MacSharry reforms in 1992 included set-aside
compensation payments to arable farmers, and were later followed by Agenda 2000
(March 1999) with Agri-environmental schemes (Readers interested to know more about
important dates in the development of the Danish Energy Policy are invited to consult
Appendix II). Variable mandatory limits (currently 10%) are forcing farmers to make
alternative uses of the land. With the proposed expansion of the EEC, increased
intensification, technology and restructuring it is inevitable that set-aside areas will
increase in the medium and long-term. Fortuitously, this has created the very conditions
for significant land areas to become available for energy crop production. (Agro Business
Consultants, 2002)
There are various energy crops and they are processed in different ways. Some are
exploited in on-farm situations whereas others are exported to energy supply companies
for electricity power generation. Policy and practicality have, in Denmark, brought about
a range of different energy producers. Many of them were subsidised to become
established, and use straw and other biomass in their operation now. As the older (pre1986) power stations are transformed to modern biomass-processing ones, the demand
for renewable resources will increase. Both farmers and electricity producers should
favour perennial crops because of certainty of supply.
There has been considerable research into a number of energy crops in Denmark.
Perennial grasses are particularly interesting as bioenergy crops because in most cases
they can be managed using conventional farm equipment with cost advantages for the
farmer. Unlike many crops these are laid down for periods of 10-15 years. During that
time they make a tremendous contribution in terms of efficient nutrient recycling,
improving the soil organic matter, and enhancing ground water quality, which is another
major environmental concern in Denmark (Samson, 1991a; Water and Environment
Supply Act, 1998).
This project examines the potential of three particular perennial grasses as a
renewable biomass energy source that could be grown on Danish Organic Farms. The 3
grasses of interest are miscanthus (Miscanthus x giganteus and Miscanthus sinensis), reed
canary grass (RCG) (Phalaris arundinacea) and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). Those
3 species have been chosen because of the availability of research, and information about
their cultivation and environmental implications. The research on these crops was done in
several countries, which have similar climates as Denmark. The project is divided into
four main chapters.
The first chapter aims to provide readers with a broad introduction to energy issues,
why they are important, and the particular concepts behind them. A short overview of
energy concepts will include a description of biomass as an energy source. Examples will
be given of the main categories of biomass currently being exploited, and an overview of
the different categories of energy crops and where this could be integrated within
ecological agriculture. The process of photosynthesis will be looked at and differences
between C3 and C4 plants will be highlighted as they have influence on the properties of
the energy grasses of interest. It also introduces Ecological Agriculture (EA) and the
principles behind it so that the potential role of perennial grasses in that context can be
exemplified. Finally, a justification of the choice of perennial grasses as a focus for our
project is presented.
Having discussed the general principles of renewable energies and the use of
perennial grasses as a biomass energy source in particular, more technical information is
provided in the second chapter on the cultivation, harvesting, and processing of each of
the three grasses. It is intended to provide sufficient information for comparisons to be
made, however readers need to appreciate that this approach is broad brush, which
indicates the issues rather than provide technical guidance, for which further professional
advice should be sought. The second chapter also looks at the ecosystemic and
environmental implications of such crops. Crucially, both the Danish Environment and
Energy Ministry, and Danish Nature recognized the positive contribution of other
ecological goods and services provided from energy crops. Organic farmers can
simultaneously enhance the environment in many ways (DARCOF, 2000). The potential
for such benefits will be indicated alongside some of the issues of concern.
A general introduction such as this is complemented by a number of qualitative
interviews from various actors of the energy crop business. The third chapter comprises a
report on the research methodology used for interviews, and a statement on the time
limitations encountered. Various questionnaires were used in addition to phone and video
interviews in order to elicit qualitative information on the perceptions of various actors in
the energy chain. These are summarised and analysed. The aim is to provide a reflection
of the state of the industry from a range of perspectives. It is anticipated that these
comments will be both stimulating and informative, recognizing of course that it is
economics that informs business decision making, even if agronomically and
technologically, it is quite a good idea to grow energy crops.
Before concluding it is recognized in the fourth chapter that there are social costs and
benefits associated with such energy crop production (Kuemmel, 2002). These will
hopefully place in context wider landscape, community, cultural and sustainable
economic interests.
1. Basic concepts
1.1. Biomass and Energy concepts
In this part, a general introduction to what biomass is will be followed by biomass
categories and by an overview of energy crop categories. Then the photosynthesis
process by which plants accumulate energy is presented. The differences between C3 and
C4 plants will be explained so readers understand the significance for biomass
accumulation. The various aspects of energy densities will be tabulated against other
fuels and energy sources so readers can have a general appreciation of the amounts of
energy contained in biological matter (biomass). In order to consider the question of
energy in more depth it is important to explain what energy is. This will be presented in
the end of the section.
1.1.1. Biomass what is it?

Biomass can be defined as the land and water vegetation in addition to all organic
wastes. Primarily all green, chlorophyll containing plants produce biomass from their
accumulated growth (after having met their own metabolic needs) through
photosynthesis. It was following the Oil crisis in the 1970s that there was a renewed
interest in biomass in the Western world, although it has been used extensively in the
Developing world for millennia. The difference now is that design technologies are
available to process the biomass more efficiently, and to optimize the useful heat that can
be obtained from it. Since there are many different kinds of biomass which are used in
different ways some further clarification is needed.
Biomass sources are quite varied, including animal wastes and municipal wastes,
crop residues, wood and forestry residues, agricultural food and feed crops, and dedicated
energy crops and trees. All share the common features that they are a renewable energy
source, and that they can be degraded to ultimately release carbon dioxide back to the
atmosphere where it can once more be taken up by plants.
1.1.2. Biomass categories

1.1.2.1. Category I - Agricultural Manures and Wastes
Anaerobic fermentation of agricultural manures, biomass material, and waste
products from food, and other suitable industrial wastes is increasingly being used to
produce biogas. Anaerobic bacteria are basically able to degrade organic material into
more simplified compounds which are used as nutrient sources for other bacteria. These
are complex processes which are for example temperature dependant, and vary with the
particular type of biological material (biostock) introduced. In the absence of oxygen,

methane and other gases are produced which can be used for on-farm production of
electricity or in Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants. A major disadvantage with this
type of material is that while intensive livestock production units particularly pig and
dairy units create large quantities of energy resource material, there is a cost
implication to handling it, and the biogas produced cannot be readily transported so
practically, it has to be used where it has been produced.
1.1.2.2. Category II - Crop Residues
Agricultural residues which typically include cereal, bean, and rice straws are being
used in increasing quantities as a direct fuel. Power stations in Denmark have been
switching to straw since the mid 1980s because it has been recognised that waste
products from agriculture and food processing industries can produce significant amounts
of energy that would be otherwise wasted. Usually these products are combusted,
although depending on the composition of the waste, it may be processed in other ways.
Cereal and other straws can be burnt in power stations as whole bales, and in smaller
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) units at farm or district level. The technology has
improved to reduce particulate emissions although the technologies to solve the corrosive
problems of potassium and chloride are still being developed. Straw is a very cheap
source of biomass that is considered by some plant producers as a waste or by-product
from cereal production. For organic farmers, however, it has been demonstrated that
reincorporation of straw is an important part of soil quality and fertility management
(Lampkin, 1990). It is not a sustainable way to provide energy because it is taking away
carbon that could otherwise be returned to the soil.
1.1.2.3. Category III - Wood and Forestry Residues
Wood and forestry residues have traditionally been used as a direct fuel because they
can be simply burnt to create heat. Today, forestry products are frequently used in
countries like Sweden as there are well designed gasifiers which enable wood materials
to be converted to gases. Those are then subsequently used as the energy source to make
electricity at the power station. It is obviously commercially viable to exploit this
valuable resource for timber with forestry waste from cutting operations being used
wherever possible. Wood and paper residues could also be included in addition to grass
and tree trimmings from urban areas. Significantly some trees grow very quickly, and
their conversion rate to biomass is considerable. Short rotation coppice (SRC) of willow
and poplar is an example of how wood production is being exploited with crops grown
specifically for their energy. Since they are considered as dedicated energy crops, they
are described in following category.
1.1.2.4. Category IV - Energy Crops
Typically those are agricultural crops grown specifically for their energy potential.
Initially there was an interest in growing more traditional crops that could be used for
energy purposes, particularly oilseed rape and sunflower. Other developments have taken
place so they tend to be divided across a range of plants into a number of categories.
These are mentioned for the sake of overview as they have different applications on the
farm and in terms of processing for energy. They are distinguished by the various uses to
which they are put.
Short Rotation Coppice

Whole Grain Crops
Oilseed crops
Sugar Containing Crops
Mixed forage legume crops
Perennial Grasses
1.1.2.4.1. Short Rotation Croppice (SRC)
Short-term rotation coppice of trees, such as willow (Salix spp.) and poplars (Populus
spp.), is now a proven technology. It is widespread in Sweden, and it is popular with
energy producers. This is because SRC trees can be chipped, and easily transported,
stored, and used. The biggest advantage of this type of crop is the potential to use them as
windbreaks and field hedges, where they can serve a dual purpose (Samson et al., 1993).
They are also environmentally friendly, in terms of emissions to water, and creating
habitats for fauna and flora (Venendaal et al., 1997). The disadvantages of this kind of
energy crop include (Samson et al., 1993)
Low productivity because of low water use efficiency compared to C4 grasses

Greater reliance on fertilizer than warm season grasses, especially if a short
rotation period is used (4 years or less)
Significant disease and pest problems are associated with the fast growing
trees and with the clonal material used
Planting, weeding, fertilizing and harvesting may require new or modified
equipment that most farmers do not have
Not adapted to marginal soils with low water holding capacity
Expensive and difficult harvesting process
More difficult and expensive to reconvert the land back to agricultural
production after plantation lifespan is over
High initial investment of capital
1.1.2.4.2. Whole Grain Crops
The collapse in world grain prices has led people to consider burning whole grain for
its energy content. However given the premiums of organic food this is not a viable
option at the present time. Grains can be burnt, wheat (Triticum aestivum) is an example.
Others like corn or maize (Zea mays) will more preferably be used for ethanol
manufacture, particularly in France and in the United States (USA) where there is an
established industry.
10
The technology is becoming available to make this more realistic at the farm scale.
Another problem of using grains as a biomass feedstock is that annual crops like grains
are hard on the soil. They require large amounts of nutrients and are associated with soil
erosion problems (Samson, 1991b). Furthermore continuous cropping of cereals and row
crops leads to depletion of organic soil carbon, and release of CO2.
1.1.2.4.3. Sugar Containing Crops
Root crops such as sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) or potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) are
very efficient sugar and carbohydrate producers. Sugar beet (some varieties approach
20% sugar content) is favored for example in the UK where an ethanol production
industry from beet is being established. The sugar can be used to make ethanol which is
very useful as a readily storable energy form for transport applications. However, once
again, these crops are annuals and require large amount of inputs. In organic agriculture
weeding of sugar beet is such a challenge that it would never be viable to produce this
crop for energy purposes. Also because of the price premiums it is not likely that organic
farmers would grow these crops for energy purpose.
1.1.2.4.4. Oilseed Crops
Oilseed crops are the most widely grown energy crops in Europe. Oilseed rape
(Brassica napus) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus) have traditionally been grown for
their oil for food purposes. However, because the oil can easily be processed into methyl
ester used as a diesel fuel substitute, they became popular energy crops. Although
biodiesel is relatively easy to produce and has a very interesting end use (the
transportation sector where a huge amount of energy is consumed), the agronomic
disadvantages of their production are great. The same arguments as for cereals and sugar
crops also apply, these crops are annuals. Other big disadvantage is that the raw material
produced is costly, and estimation for energy balance range from modest to negative
(Venendaal et al., 1997). Furthermore, oilseed rape is hard to produce organically
because of insect and disease problems.
1.1.2.4.5. Legumes
There is increasing interest in the use of legumes which can be fermented for biogas.
Clovers (Trifolium spp.), alfalfa or lucerne (Medicago sativa), lupins (Lupinus spp.)
either alone or in mixtures with other grass crops give particularly high energy yields in
terms of biomass. These can be harvested using traditional farm equipment and are
pelletized for transportation and use. However legumes do contain high percentages of
nitrogen which emits as nitrous oxides upon combustion. At the present time, more
effective technologies are being developed to reduce the pollution effects. They could
also be fermented to produce mainly methane. This is a very interesting option for
organic farmers, especially when considering the benefits of incorporating legumes in a
crop rotation and the potentials to use the processing residues on the field. Energy
production could be an interesting way to make long lasting legume stands profitable.
The reason why this alternative will not be discussed in the report is the lack of
11
availability of information on the topic. Research is only starting about fermentation of

legumes for energy production. Also, the fuel obtained, a gas, is not the easiest to handle
or the most versatile.
1.1.2.4.5. Perennial Grasses
The last category is perennial grasses (such as miscanthus , reed canary grass (RCG)
and switchgrass) which will be looked at in greater detail in this report. It is a category of
energy crops with a number of advantages. The key features of perennial grasses being
grown for energy crop production are (Samson, 1991a):
Environmental and social gains from sustainable energy production

Low costs of production
Low input requirements
Improved Water quality
Enhanced levels of Soil Organic Matter
Carbon sequestration
Biodiversity enhancement
Reduced CO2 and other GreenHouse Gases (GHG)
Use of on farm skills, and machinery (farmer friendliness)
Potential for numerous energy outlets (type) and locally based
1.1.3. How Do Plants Accumulate Energy - Photosynthesis

Since biomass is formed as a result of photosynthesis, it is perhaps useful to remind
readers of the basic mechanisms. This is essentially the process by which plants meet
their own metabolic needs by
Figure 1: Simplified CO2 Neutral Energy Cycle
synthesising carbohydrates from water
(H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) using
Photosynthesis
light energy (they are autotrophs).These
carbohydrates are then used in various
Solar radiation
metabolic cycles.
energy input
Under the principles of
thermodynamics energy is neither
created nor destroyed. Solar energy
becomes embodied in the structure of
plants to be released on digestion,
decomposition or combustion. CO2 is
released to the atmosphere during
combustion but since the plants can use
it again through photosynthesis, biomass
is a CO2 neutral source of energy. The
simplified cycle is in figure 1.
6CO2 + 6H2O
Heat energy
output
Source: Bassam, 1998
12
6O2 + C6H12O6
Combustion
Light energy is used in the process of

photosynthesis and eventually stored in a
chemical form with carbohydrates. Plant
leaves contain special organelles called
chloroplasts, which contain various
pigments. The chlorophylls are believed to
absorb a particular part of the light
spectrum called photosynthetically active
radiation (400-700nm) and are most active
in the 400nm (blue) and 600nm (red) parts
of the spectrum (see figure 2). The leaves
of plants are the solar collectors of radiant
light energy. There are a number of
Source: Sengbusch,(2002)
complex reactions that take place during
photosynthesis. Light energy is used in the
process of photosynthesis to split water molecules. The hydrogen obtained will reduce
CO2 into glucose through an enzymatically catalyzed reaction. The enzyme which
enables the carbohydrate synthesis to take place is rubisco (Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate
carboxylase/oxygenase). However there are important implications here because this
enzyme can also frustrate the process (Saupe, 2000).
Figure 2: Photosynthetically Active Radiations
1.1.3.1. Differences between C3 and C4 Plants

There are major differences in CO2 assimilation between C3 and C4 plants which have
implications for the formation of biomass material. CO2 fixing pathways will affect the
efficiency of photosynthesis.
Plants that grow well in spring temperate climates (northern hemisphere) are C3
species. As examples, forage grasses and wheat can be mentioned. From the 3 species
investigated in the project, reed canary grass belongs into this group. The optimal rate of
biomass accumulation in C3 plants is kept lower by photorespiration (not to be confused
with mitochondrial respiration) and less efficient resource use. The photorespiration
process occurs in chloroplasts when rubisco (which is a carboxylase, but can also act as
an oxygenase) starts catalyzing a reaction with an oxygen molecule rather than a CO2
molecule. Although rubisco is more susceptible to react with CO2 (Km = 20 M) than
with O2 (Km = 200 M), O2 is much more prevalent in the air (21%) than CO2 (0.03%).
The result of photorespiration is that no reduction of CO2 occurs, no carbohydrates are
synthesized, and a molecule of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Note that CO2 is
released by all the plants during mitochondrial respiration, which is a totally different
metabolic process. (Harris, 2003)
13
The difference between the two types of plants lies in the anatomy of their vascular
bundles. In C3 plants, mesophyll cells contain the enzyme rubisco. Those cells are
exposed to air and oxygen. In C4 plants, only the bundle sheath cells contain rubisco, and
those are isolated from the air and from potential contacts with oxygen by a layer of
mesophyll cells. In mesophyll cells, another specialized enzyme, PEP carboxylase, fixes
CO2 and delivers it to rubisco. Figure 3 shows the structural differences between the
two types of plants. (Harris, 2003)
Figure 3: Anatomical Differences Between C3 and C4 plants
source: Harris, 2003
C4 plants (such as maize, sorghum (Sorghum biocolor), sugarcane (Saccharum

officinarium) and two the other grasses investigated - miscanthus and switchgrass) are so
adapted that they avoid the photorespiratory loss of carbon. Therefore they have higher
rates of photosynthesis when conditions approximate to their optimal growing
temperature. C4 plants are very effective in water utilization which is of course very
important for biomass accumulation. They also
Figure 4: Comparison of photosynthesis
have higher nitrogen utilization efficiency
rate depending on temperature between
because they do not require as much rubisco
C3 and C4 plants
enzyme as C3 plants (it is concentrated in the
bundle sheath). It is worth reminding readers
that enzymes are complex proteins composed of
nitrogen and other elements. More detailed
information is provided in Appendix III about
differences between the photosynthetic
pathways.
An important agronomic difference between
C3 and C4 is in the temperature optima for
photosynthesis. It is about 23 C in C3 plants
and about 33 C in C4 plants (Porter, 2003). The
effect of temperature on the photosynthesis rate
is shown in Figure 4. Note that in temperate
14
Source: Porter (2003)
climates C3 might do better than C4 which, as will be shown, is one of the main reasons
for the success of reed canary grass in Finland. The climate in Denmark is in a range
where, theoretically, C3 plants are likely to have more efficient photosynthesis.
In Summary, C4 Plants have the following advantages (Saupe 2000):
avoid the photorespiratory loss of carbon

improved the water use efficiency of the plants
higher rates of photosynthesis at high temperatures
higher efficiency of nitrogen utilization (because C3 require more of rubisco)
1.1.4. Properties of Biomass

Plants accumulate a considerable amount of organic carbon matter in their various
storage organs (roots, leaves, stems). Those can be harvested from an energy crop and are
then termed biomass. This product however does not have a great quantity of energy in it
on a per unit basis. It can be combusted as it is, although often further processing takes
place to concentrate the energy in a more usable form.
1.1.4.1. Energy Densities
Although energy is stored in the plant products it is important to recognize that it can
have varying degrees of energy density. Biomass is a solid fuel and can, for example, be
compared with coal. It is obviously not as dense, and by approximating data from
Johansson (1993) it can be assumed that on a dry weight basis, heating values range from
17.5 GJ t-1, for herbaceous feedstocks, to 20 GJ t-1 for woody feedstocks. The
corresponding values for bituminous coals are 33 GJ t-1 and for lignite 24.5 GJ t-1. The
energy in one tonne of bitumous coal will be considerably greater than in one tonne of
vegetative material. Generally, energy densities of grains and oilseed crops are higher
than those of perennial grass crops.
Energy density of the products will have implications with regards to harvesting,
transportation and processing of the energy crop. If the mass (weight) of the material has
a large volume, as might be the case with straw, then the relative energy use to transport
it will be high, so the point of end use is of particular significance. Liquid fuels have been
processed so the energy concentration in them is relatively high.
Energy densities are usually measured in joules per mass or volume unit, eg. J kg-1
and J m-3. For solid fuels m-3 includes the air in-between the fuel particles, and for
gaseous fuels, m-3 is defined at 0C and 101.325 kPa. Table 2 below is an extract from
Appendix IV that shows energy densities for various fuels.
15
Table 2: Energy Densities in Different Fuels

Fuel
MJ kg -1
Coal
27,2-31,4
Gasoline
42,7
Diesel oil
41,9
Heavy fuel oil
40,6
Ethanol (95%)
25,3
Methane
50,4
Straw
13,5
GJ m-3
21,8-25,1
30,8
36,4
38,6
20,5
36,1
1,5
Source: Andersen et al. (1995)
1.1.4.2. Moisture Content

The moisture content of biomass can be considerable with additional inputs of energy
implications for drying and storage before use. Transportation of unwanted water content,
if the biomass product cannot be used on site, is also questionable. Wheat straw moisture
is typically 14%, with green wood a moisture content of 45% is common, and animal
manures have over 80% in water content. In contrast, the moisture content in coal fuel
stocks range from just 2-12% (Johansson, 1993). It has to be appreciated these are
indicative approximations as specific sampling would have to be undertaken. Many
products absorb moisture and acquiesce depending on temperature, humidity, surface
area of exposure and other conditions. (Andersen et al., 1995)
1.1.5. Energy, Exergy, Emergy

In order to consider the question of energy in more depth it is important to understand
a few more fundamental concepts. Basically energy can be defined as the capacity to do
work. It is often reduced to different forms for example: light, sound, kinetic, potential,
chemical, heat, and mechanical energy. Potential energy is energy stored in all its forms
which when released can perform work, examples include rivers and streams above sealevel, or a block of coal.
Energy forms follow some basics known as the Laws of Thermodynamics :
First Law: Energy can be neither created nor destroyed only transformed
from one form to another.
Second Law: Entropy, or disorder, in a closed system always tends to increase.
Applied to energy, this means that during transformations, energy goes from a
concentrated form to a less concentrated form. The remaining energy is dissipated
in the form of heat.
16
Exergy is a measure of the degree to which a particular energy form can be applied to
carry out work. Although there is inherent energy in biomass (for example it could be
burnt for heat) this exergy as it is known is of a low grade. Consequently it can only be
used for a very limited range of purposes. However through stages this low grade energy
form can be promoted to a higher grade exergy (for example electricity which can be
used for a multiplicity of purposes). The stages of transformation the energy goes through
require a loss of the original (embodied) energy.
Energy is itself degraded according to the Second law of Thermodynamics. Yet
paradoxically it is by being degraded in losing some proportion of the original solar
energy that a higher energy form can be made. As an example we can consider sunlight,
trapped through photosynthesis to create sugars (chemical energy), these might be
combusted to create heat, which in sufficient quantities creates steam to operate
(mechanical energy) an electricity generator. A lot of energy was expended in all the
transformations yet at the end of the process electricity was available to operate the
information systems of a computer. Throughout the flow a proportion of the energy is
upgraded into a more concentrated form capable of doing work.
An ecologist by the name of Odum, attempted to provide a systems approach to the
study of environment and human interactions. He designed energy accounting as a means
of following energy flows through a system. More specifically, it aimed at following the
amount of the suns solar energy that has become embodied in the marine and plant
ecosystems of the planet and how it is degraded and transformed into higher forms. Since
it is the suns energy that ultimately drives everything on the planet, Odum rationalised
into making this embodied energy, which he called emergy, into a form of energy
currency.
Emergy is according to Odum defined as the available energy of one kind previously
used up directly and indirectly to make a service or product (usually quantified in solar
energy equivalents) (Odum, 1986). Another definition is also offered where Emergy is
defined as all the available energy that was used in the work of making a product and
expressed in units of one type of energy (Odum, 1996).
It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all of Odums work. His ecological
approach analysed all the elements and processes of an ecosystem in terms of energy
flows, and energy storages. Within this system matrix there are a number of
transformations, feedback loops and sinks. The transformations may involve the building
of complexity from more basic elements.
To create an integrated, complex energy structure in Denmark from renewable and
natural resources will inevitably take time, and a considerable amount of energy input.
These substantial energy inputs can only be made from the subsidy from using fossil
fuel energies. The pay-off is eventually a point will be reached where it is more cost
effective to use the new renewable energy sources than fossil fuels because their
continued use will impose too great a societal cost (Kuemmel,2002).
17
Odums contribution was to incorporate human systems and economies together with
the living and non-living elements of the holistic world matrix. He recognised that high
energy consuming industrial man is a natural response to fossil fuel abundance, because
the energy was available to enable a whole series of transformations to take place.
In the context of biomass energy production from perennial grasses in Denmark, it is
also salient to highlight Odums (1996):
Those systems that survive in competition among alternative choices are
those that develop more power (rate of energy flow) inflow and use it to
meet the needs of survival
It is for this reason that biomass in concert with other renewable (sustainable)
energies will eventually tip the balance in their favour and negate the need for fossil fuel
inputs. This has to be qualified with a long time frame for these developments to come to
fruition. Odums work describes a number of strategies as to how systems move towards
this Maximum power principle. Readers may reflect that this applies to ecological farm
systems as well as high order organizations (e.g. university). Storage capacity must be
developed for high quality energy. There must be feedback loops from the stores to
increase inflows. Materials (and nutrients) must be recycled as needed. Organising and
control mechanisms must be available to ensure both adaptability and stability.
Exchanges with other systems must be enabled; and a contribution of useful work to the
surrounding environmental systems must be possible. These points are crucial to
understanding sustainable system design.
Readers therefore need to reflect on these crucial concepts of energy, emergy and
exergy. It is crucial to understand how energy crops like perennial grasses can be used to
capture the suns energy and stored an upgraded form of it within plants. The following
step is to look at how a proportion of this is subsequently sacrificed to enable other
transformation to make really useful, versatile forms of energy like electricity as an
example. The lost or sacrificed energy which is potentially quite large in terms of the
volume of energy consumed to make the required transformations is still accounted for in
the emergy equation. However at the end of the chain it is the final exergy that is
available as an energy to do useful work. Ones understanding of this is important to
make the required links between sustainability and the need for ecological agriculture to
produce as much biomass energy as possible from locally grown and renewable
resources.
18
1.2. Ecological agriculture concepts

1.2.1. The Principles
Ecological Agriculture (EA) is increasingly being developed in Denmark and
elsewhere. It is promoted on the premise of enhancing natural cycles (for example the
nitrogen cycle through rotations), and biodiversity. The changes being made towards a
more sustainable farming system include no longer use of industrial fertilizers, or
pesticides. Other high fossil fuel inputs will also be reduced (e.g. minimum tillage
reduces fuel inputs). In fact the biological, social and economic resources will become
more and more integrated at a local level, and energy self-sufficiency is a governmental
long-term goal. In Denmark, there are government regulated standards with rigorous
certification standards and regular process audited reviews for ecological agriculture.
There are 3 main principles which drive production in ecological farming:
Cycling Principle
Precautionary Principle
Nearness Principle
Nature and the ecosystems on the planet operate on the universal principle of
cycling. Likewise ecological agriculture recognizes the importance of these natural
cycles and designs to use them for maximum gain. Nutrient cycling is one example where
the egested products become the raw material for the next food production cycle. Most
are familiar with the concept of the nitrogen or carbon cycles. Nutrient cycling is
obviously a characteristic of organic farming. Agricultural wastes can also be
reincorporated as animal manures to fertilize succeeding crops, or plant biomass may be
composted, or ploughed-in directly. Losses of nutrients like nitrogen through leaching
and volatilization are to be avoided or at least minimized.
While nutrient cycling is appreciated, it is also fundamental to extract the maximum
from the energy cycle too. A stream flows into a river, the river to the sea. Through time
and space the potential energy of the water can be extracted to operate water turbines at a
number of locations. Extracting the maximum energy for a minimal input.
There are many levels in which the natural systems operate from the alpha level
where the concern is at field level, to the beta or farm level and beyond, to the larger
gamma level, landscapes and bioregion. These cycles that manifest at the local level are
also part of even larger ultimately global cycles, for example climate and weather
patterns, carbon cycles, and other nutrient flows. To be effective the ecological farmer
recognizes the cycles and utilizes them for maximizing the benefits to the whole system.
19
Another precept of ecological agriculture is that of the Precautionary Principle. In

this complex system, recognized as a farm there are many levels of sub-systems. Each
system is integrated with another one. Energy flows in and out of each of the systems in
their functional performance. Within complex, integrated systems, there can be multiple
causes and multiple effects. Accordingly, it is essential that the introduction of new ways
of doing things, or new plants being introduced, new practice methodologies are carefully
considered. Ecological farmers recognize that new plants or systems should be introduced
on a gradual basis to fully ascertain the wider effects they might have. We must be
particularly sensitive to the threats of serious and or irreversible damage. There may be
long-term and hidden consequences of our actions and so until a better understanding is
available from knowledge, or from distilled experience (history), or our own wisdom then
the precautionary principle must prevail.
The Nearness Principle is also important for ecological agriculture. The nearness
principle is seen as an important one both at the micro level of plant interactions but also
in terms of a localization of services. Implicit is the idea that all flows of inputs and
outputs will be resourced from within the farm system or at least the locality. It follows
that since energy is consumed in transportation that the local provisioning of goods and
services is beneficial.
In order to follow the 3 basic principles of organic farming, there are other tenets
applied in organic production. As the project aims to investigate whether the perennial
grasses fit into these principles, it is necessary to introduce them to the reader. They are:
Biodiversity
Intercropping
Crop rotations
Importance of Soil Organic Matter
Ecological Goods and Services
Biodiversity is an important part of agroecological systems. Maximum system gains

can be achieved through a diversity of plants and animal species in a unit area of land
over time. It helps build competition between species as well as symbiotic alliances
where each gets a benefit from the other. Risks of failure are distributed and minimized
and the systems resilience to withstand shocks is enhanced.
In considering cropping systems some of the biodiversity features may be applied.
Intercropping of different species may increase the overall productivity of the enterprise
while suppressing opportunistic weeds. Companion planting through inter-row cropping
can increase the synergy between plants each mutually enhancing the other. Sometimes it
also allows to better utilize the available niches exploited in different ways by different
specie of plants.
Crop rotations are designed to introduce maximum overall gain into the farm system.
For example legumes are used to enhance the nitrogen status of the soil. They can be
followed by a high nutrient demanding plant, and then by a nutrient scavenger or a weed
20
suppressor plant before legumes are brought back in the cycle. The crop rotations
increase the biodiversity both in term of space and time.
Constructive use of nutrient recycling, the use of legumes, increased inter-cropping
and rotations will all contribute towards a healthy and dynamic soil with a higher organic
matter content.
There are a wide range of additional ecological goods and services provided through
organic farming. Benefits like cleaner ground water systems, reduced pollution and the
availability of locally produced fresh organic foods are seen as additional bonuses to the
harvested crop.
1.2.2. Why Perennial Grasses in Ecological Agriculture?

Keeping in mind the principles of ecological agriculture and looking back at the
characteristics of the different energy crops categories, it seems that perennial grasses are
likely to have the greatest potential for production of energy in organic farming.
Moreover, organic farmers obtain high premium for their food product. It is hence not
likely, that they would grow food crops for energy purpose. The energy crops have to be
associated with other benefits, and perennial grasses are the category of energy crop
associated with the greatest number of those other benefits.
At present, it is not likely, that organic farmers would replace the food crops
associated with premiums by energy crops on a large scale. In this report we will consider
that as long as direct subsidization is not available for biomass production, Danish
organic farmers are more likely to use marginal land for energy crop production
(Girouard et al., 1995). There is also the option of using set aside land that is likely to be
attractive for farmers in the short run. We will also consider that a low input system
would be preferred by organic farmers for environmental and economic reasons
explained later. Other options (such as using arable land) will still be looked at, and their
environmental impacts evaluated, because the economics of energy crop production
might change in the future.
We have chosen the perennial grasses as a topic for this project, an overview of the
different aspects of their production as energy crops in ecological agriculture will be
presented in the following chapter.
21
SUMMARY
A general overview of renewable energies has presented the important role of

biomass based energy as a part of an integrated approach to energy sustainability
This has been complemented with information on photosynthesis showing the

basic mechanism, and storage of energy in the form of biomass in plants.
The differences between C3 and C4 plants were highlighted
Photosynthetic efficiency should theoretically be higher for C3 plants in Denmark
C4 plants are associated with reduced photorespiration, as well as higher nitrogen

and water use efficiencies.
Important biomass characteristics are energy density and moisture content
There is information on the basic concepts of energy, exergy and emergy with
references to Odums work. They allow better understanding of energy flows in
systems and help characterizing the types of energy
No study of this kind would be complete without reminding readers of the

fundamental principles of Ecological Agriculture: cycling, nearness and
precaution
Other basics of ecological agriculture were also briefly described: biodiversity,

intercropping, crop rotations, soil organic matter, and ecological goods and
services are important to keep in mind
22
2.
Perennial Grasses as Energy Crops
This second chapter is the core of this project and it focuses on the agronomic aspects
and ecosystemic implications of producing Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses (PRG) as
energy crops in ecological agriculture. It aims at providing a complete survey of the
literature to gather up to date data about the production methods, the environmental
impacts and the processing of perennial grasses as bioenergy crops.
Since most of the literature has been written about conventional ways to produce
them, the report will also highlight the differences, challenges, and future topics for
discussion and research in the organic production of PRG. The second chapter is divided
in 3 sections: the first one about the production of perennial grasses, the second one about
the environmental implications, and the third one about the processing.
The 3 grasses that we have chosen to look at are miscanthus, reed canary grass
(RCG), and switchgrass. The interesting characteristics and advantages of each of the
crop are summarized in table 3
Table 3: Comparison of the Advantages of Each Perennial Grass Crop Chosen

Miscanthus
High biomass potential
Efficient use of H20 and
nutrients (C4)
Broad genetic
variability in regions of
origin (can be used for
breeding)
High persistence
Can be harvested once a
year at various times
Reed canary grass

Seed establishment
possible
Indigenous crop already
adapted to conditions
Broad genetic variability
Overwintering is safe
Good combustion
quality of the biomass
Adapted to short
vegetation periods and
low temperatures
Source: Lewandowski et al., 2003.
23
Switchgrass
Seed establishment
possible
Efficient use of H20 and
nutrients (C4)
Considerable genetic
variability suggesting
likely gains in yield
through breeding
High yield on relatively
poor sites
Good combustion quality
of the biomass
Experience and genetic
variability available from
US and Canada
Miscanthus, sometimes called Elephant Grass, is one of the most productive grass
species known to date, and it is the one for which the most research has been done in
Denmark. There are some farmers growing miscanthus in Denmark, and we tried to get in
contact with them as will be explained in Chapter 3 of the report.
Reed canary grass has been identified by the European Commission as the grass
with the most potential for biomass production in northern part of Europe (Lewandowski,
2003). Considerable amounts of research have been done in Sweden and Finland, and the
outlook for production of this species of grass in Denmark is good. Furthermore, it is the
only species native to Europe that we will look at.
Switchgrass has been chosen in the US as a model crop by the Bioenergy
Feedstock Development Program (BFDP). They chose the concentrate research resources
on a single grass crop in order to quickly achieve maximal results and output. A lot of
research has been done in the US and in Canada where the grass is a native species. In
fact, of the 3 crops, switchgrass is probably the one about which the most research has
been done. Furthermore, it has been identified by the European Commission as a grass
with a lot of potential for southern and central Europe. In northern regions, yields are
lower, but research has been done in Canada that showed that the grass still had potential
for cooler regions with short growing seasons (Lewandowski et al., 2003).
2.1. Production of Perennial Grasses

In the first section, we will start by looking at the characteristics of the 3 grasses
chosen. For each grass, origin, physiology, ecological demands and seeding/propagation
will be successively looked at. This will be followed by section about cultural practices
involved in Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses (PRG) production. We will look at the issues
for PRG as a whole, and minor differences will be highlighted throughout the text. When
differences are too striking or major, the techniques will be presented in separate subsections for each of the grasses. The topics covered include site preparation, crop
establishment, fertilization, weeds, pests and diseases, harvesting and storage, and finally,
other considerations like intercropping. This first section finishes with the potential yields
for the different grasses in Denmark, and the quality of the biomass.
Although they have different climatic demands all PRG show similar growth
characteristics. PRG are characterised by their rhizome system. Rhizomes are
underground growing shoots. They function as storage organ for nutrients and
assimilates, and they are the over-wintering organs from which new shoots emerge in the
spring. Once the stand of PRG is established, it is a conservative estimate to say that it
can probably carry on for 10 years (reed canary grass, switchgrass) to 15 years
(miscanthus). Due to their rhizome system PRG have a high yield potential in low input
systems, good combustion quality, and they are environmentally benign crops compared
to annual crops (Lewandowski et al., 2000). PRG display many beneficial attributes as
energy crops, and there has been increasing interest for their use in the US and Europe
since the mid-1980 (Lewandowski et al., 2003)
24
2.1.1. Characteristics of The Plants

2.1.1.1. Miscanthus (Miscanthus spp.)
2.1.1.1.1. Origin
Miscanthus was first cultivated in Europe in the 1930s, when it was introduced as an
ornamental plant from Yokohama, Japan. A number of other ornamental varieties of
miscanthus are also known to exist under various common names. The yield potential of
miscanthus for cellulose fiber production was investigated in the late 1960s in Denmark.
Trials for bioenergy production were established in Denmark in 1983, spreading to
Germany in 1987 before more widespread evaluation throughout whole Europe
(Scurlock, 1999). Nationally funded projects in Denmark and other European countries
supported research on propagation and establishment, management practices, harvest, and
handling of miscanthus. In 1997, under the European FAIR program, a project for the
development of new miscanthus hybrids, breeding methods for miscanthus and the
screening of different genotypes all over Europe was funded (Lewandowski et al., 2003).
The genus Miscanthus has its origin in East-Asia, where it is found throughout a wide
climatic range from tropical to subtropical and warm temperate parts of Southeast Asia
and the Pacific Islands (Lewandowski et al., 2003).
Taxonomically this genus belongs to the subtribe Saccharina of the subfamily
Andropogoneae, which is in the family Graminae (Poaceae) (Lewandowski et al., 2000).
The genus Miscanthus consists of 17 species. Miscanthusgiganteus is widely used in
Europe for biomass production. It is probably a natural hybrid of Miscanthus
sacchariflorus (diploid) and Miscanthus sinensis (tetraploid) species (Lewandowski et
al., 2003). The contribution of M. sacchariflorus to the genome M.giganteus is thought
to provide adaptation to warmer climates, whereas M. sinensis provides adaptation for
cooler regions (Jrgensen, 1997). M.giganteus, as a triploid hybrid, has vigorous
growth and certain stress tolerance characteristics (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Different
genotypes of miscanthus could cover the wide ecological areas formed in Europe.
Two basic species which can be cultivated for energy purpose in Denmark are
Miscanthusgiganteus and Miscanthus sinensis. M. sinensis and its hybrids are most
suitable for cooler sites in Denmark.
2.1.1.1.2. Physiology
With the C4 photosynthetic pathway, miscanthus shows a remarkable combination of
high light, water, and nitrogen use efficiencies. Its photosynthetic mechanism appears to
be better adapted to lower temperatures than that of many other C4 crops, allowing for
high productivity under relatively cool temperatures (Scurlock, 1999).
Miscanthus has a well developed root system, and a dense root mat which is usually
well developed by year 2 or 3, but it depends on the site (e.g. climatic, pedologic and
relief conditions) (Scurlock, 1999). Root length density in the topsoil for miscanthus is
25
lower than for annual crops such as winter wheat and sugar beets (Neukirchen et al.,
1999). Neukirchen et al. (1999) report that the top soil (0-30 cm) contains 28% of root
biomass while nearly half of the total roots are present in soil layers deeper than 90 cm
and can penetrate to a depth of 250 cm. Such rooting depths enable miscanthus to take up
nutrients (and water) from the subsoil; and thereby overcome periods of low nutrient (and
water) availability in the topsoil. This is especially important during periods of rapid
above-ground biomass growth. Furthermore, such an extensive rooting system is likely to
reduce losses of nutrients (especially nitrate) due to leaching throughout the year
(Neukirchen et al., 1999).
The underground rhizome system of miscanthus is a storage organ for nutrients and
forms new shoots every year. M. sinensis is characterized by a tuft-forming rhizome with
high shoot densities and by thinner stems while M. sacchariflorus is characterized by a
broad, creeping rhizome with thick, tall stems. Hybrids of them, like Miscanthus
giganteus, form an intermediate type of rhizome (Venendaal et al., 1997; Clifton-Brown
et al., 2001). Above ground, from the second season onwards, the canopy of miscanthus
can be expected to achieve a maximum height of 2.5 - 3.5 m (Nixon and Bullard, 2001).
The leaves have flat blades and are linear, 50 cm long and 3 cm wide.
In the Danish climate, only M. sinensis
flowers, and shows physiological
senescence. M. 'Giganteus' stays in the
vegetative stage until it is killed by the frost
(Jrgensen, 1997). This has several
consequences, and will be discussed later.
The inflorescence is a fan-like panicle with a
long axis and many racemes (shown in
figure 5). Miscanthus is a wind pollinated,
self incompatible species. This selfincompatibility in miscanthus species
facilitates the breeding of hybrids (CliftonBrown et al., 2001).
Figure 5: Graphic Showing Miscanthus

sinensis
M.giganteus , as a triploid hybrid, is

not capable of producing fertile seeds and
must be propagated from rhizomes. There
Source: DC Flora Flower galleryare thus lower risks to have it dispersed in
http://persoon.si.edu/DCGallery/flowgal.cfm
wild habitats by wildlife or wind (Heaton et
al., 2002). The other miscanthus genotypes
on the other hand can produce fertile seeds. Current breeding programs for Miscanthus
spp. are attempting to produce infertile hybrids (Clifton-Brown et al., 2001). Miscanthus
is highly persistent and the estimated life time of a plantation is from 15 to 25 years
(Lewandowski et al., 2003).
At the other end of the life spectrum, and at the end of the growing season,
miscanthus, like the other grasses, is very sensitive to frost. The above ground part of the
26
plant dies if temperatures go below the freezing point. This is relevant for production in
Denmark because in northern countries there are risks of early killing frosts in the fall,
and this could cause the sudden death of the miscanthus canopy (and no subsequent
growth). This is a physiological limitation of miscanthus. Other ecological demands of
the crop will be looked at in the following section.
2.1.1.1.3. Ecological Demands
Miscanthus can be grown on a wide range of soils: from sandy to clay soils and also
on high organic matter soils (Nixon and Bullard, 2001). Miscanthus can be grown also on
marginal lands. The most important soil characteristic for miscanthus success is the water
holding capacity. The highest yields are obtained on soils with a good water holding
capacity. Sites with stagnant water and where prolonged drought periods might occur are
not suitable (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Miscanthus appears to thrive within areas which
are currently best suited for maize production (Luger, u).
Establishment after planting is better on sandy soils, mainly due to lower competition
by weeds, while in the long run yields are higher on heavy soils. This is explained by the
improved water availability (Lewandowski et al., 2003). The optimum pH for miscanthus
is between 5.5 and 7.5 (Nixon and Bullard, 2001). However, miscanthus originates from
the acidic volcanic soils of Japan, and has been shown to grow well at low soil pH in
Denmark (Jrgensen, 1997).
M.giganteus begins growth from the dormant winter rhizomes when soil
temperatures reach 1012C (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Photosynthesis, and therefore
plant growth for M.giganteus, does not happen at very low temperatures. The threshold
for miscanthus photosynthesis is 6C (Christian et al., 1999a). Considerable variation
exists in the thermal response of leaf expansion for different genotypes (Lewandowski et
al., 2003). M. sinensis is more tolerant to the lower temperatures than other genotypes of
miscanthus.
Miscanthus genotypes differ in their response to water deficit. M.sinensis has a
flexible water saving strategy. Therefore M.sinensis would appear to be more suitable
than the other genotypes for biomass production in non-irrigated environments with
frequent short to medium length summer droughts (Clifton-Brown and Lewandowski,
2000).
2.1.1.1.4. Seeding Material, Propagation and Breeding
M. sinensis generates fertile seeds but these seeds are very small (1000 seeds weigh
about 2501000 mg), have low nutrient reserves, and require high temperature and
moisture for germination (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Propagation by sowing is very
problematic, and further research is needed to develop techniques (e.g. pelleting) to
enable seed establishment (Christian et al., 2000). The sterile hybrid M.giganteus does
not form seeds, and has to be propagated vegetativelly (Lewandowski et al., 2003). This
is the biggest disadvantage of miscanthus because the planting material is expensive and
27
significantly increase production costs. However, productivity for more than 15 years can
compensate for the costs.
There are two methods for the propagation of miscanthus: planting mechanically divided
rhizomes (macro-propagation), or plantlets micropropagated in tissue culture (micropropagation). Rhizome division is favoured because it is less expensive, and generally
produces more vigorous plants. The principle of this method developed in Denmark is
that nursery fields are, after 2-3 years, subjected to a single pass with a rotary tiller
breaking up rhizomes into 20-100g pieces. Rhizome pieces may be collected with a stone
picker, or a potato or flower (lily) bulb harvester from the nursery field (Lewandowski et
al., 2000). Rhizome pieces must have at least 2-3 'buds' and must be kept moist before replanting (Nixon and Bullard, 2001). The storage should be as short as possible: it is
recommended to plant rhizomes just after harvest (Lewandowski et al., 2000). Field trials
showed that the emergence rate was 70-95% when rhizomes pieces were planted within a
few days after harvesting (Luger, u). However, other authors reported that the storage is
possible up to a year when the rhizomes are kept under cold conditions (< 4C) (Nixon
and Bullard, 2001).
2.1.1.2. Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.)
RCG has been used in the past mainly as a fodder crop for horses but today the use
for fodder has been restricted due to its relatively thick, highly lignified stems, and low
feeding value (Christian et al., 2000). It is also planted for erosion control on steep
slopes, banks of ponds, and created wetlands (Department of natural resources, 1998) .
Nowadays the interest in using reed canary grass is concentrated around material and
energy uses (Lewandowski et al., 2003).
During the 1980s several projects were initiated in Sweden to evaluate different crops
and their biomass potential. RCG was chosen as one of the most interesting crops
(Lewandowski et al., 2003). In recent years the research about this species has been
carried out mainly in Sweden and Finland, but some research is also going on in
Denmark, UK and other countries.
2.1.1.2.1. Origin
Reed canary grass is a cool season, sod forming, perennial wetland grass belonging to
the subfamily Pooideae of the Gramineae family (Lewandowski et al., 2003). It is native
to the temperate regions of Europe, Asia and North America. In Europe it can be found
throughout the Nordic countries, even in the mountain areas in the north (Anonym, 2003;
Lewandowski et al., 2003)
28
Figure 6: Reed canary grass
This large, coarse C3 grass has erect,

hairless stems, usually 0.6 - 2 m tall. It has
vigorous rhizomes and its root system can reach
to more than 3 m. Leaf blades are usually light
green, 9-25 cm long and 0.5 - 2 cm wide. They
persist through winter even though dead
(Anonym, 2002). The ligule is membranous and
long. The panicles are compact, erect or
sometimes slightly spreading. Single flowers
occur in dense clusters in May to mid-June.
Inflorescences are green or slightly purple at
first, than become tan (Hutchison, 1990;
Lewandowski et al., 2003). RCG is a highly
self-sterile plant (Lewandowski et al., 2003).
The morphology of reed canary grass shows
figure 6.
Source: Department of Nature
Resources, Wisconcin (1998)

RCG reproduces from seed or vegetatively
by stout creeping rhizomes. It begins growth in
early spring, growing vertically 5-7 weeks after germination, and then it expands
laterally. The growth peaks in mid-June, and declines in mid-August. A second growth
spurt occurs in the fall. Seeds ripen in late June and shatter when ripe. They are shiny
brown and small (1000 seeds have a weight of 1 g) (Hutchison, 1990; Lewandowski et
al., 2003).
In commercial production RCG is expected to be productive for 10-15 years without

new establishment (Landstm, 1996).
Reed canary grass is a persistent species which occurs from wet to dry habitats with
best growth on fertile and moist soils. It is one of the best grass species for poorly drained
soils and it tolerates flooding better than other cool season grasses. Its roots can withstand
49 days under water (Wright, 1988), and tolerate even sea water with low salt content.
Even though it naturally grows in wet places, it is nevertheless more drought resistant
than many other grass species. (Pakhala, 1999; Lewandowski et al., 2003)
RCG can be grown on almost all soil types. It thrives particularly on wet humus rich
soils, where it gives the highest yields and best quality of biomass. Heavy clay soils (>40
% clay) have indicated to be less suitable for establishment and early growth. Reed
canary grass is adapted to, and grows very well in a cool temperate climate. It has also
good winter hardiness. The optimum pH for RCG is 6-7 (Walworth, 1998).
29
RCG is well adapted to marginal soils, which is an advantage, because we estimate

that it is mainly the marginal soils or set-aside areas, which will be used for energy crop
production in organic farming (at least in the beginning). Marginal soils from
agronomical point of view are soils which cannot be tilled frequently or sometimes not at
all. They are not adapted to row and annual crops and they are often kept fallow, or are
used as unmanaged rangelands or woodlands. It is not profitable to use them because
their low productivity. They have a potential for forestry, particularly in short rotation
biomass production, or for grassland agriculture. The productive potential of these soils is
limited because of shallowness, steepness, erosion susceptibility, poor internal drainage,
wetness, flooding, or poor water supplying capacity (Fribourg and Wells, 1992).
Since RCG tolerates very wet soils as well as drought, it can be grown on the
marginal soils of the farm, where other crops wouldnt grow very well. It provides the
farmers a possibility to use marginal areas, and to obtain an additional income from the
energy crop.
Seed production is slightly unreliable because of seed shattering and occasionally
poor panicle production. Seed often shatter from the upper branches while seed at the
base are still immature (Lewandowski et al., 2003).
Most of the varieties available on the market have been developed for forage use,
especially in the USA but also in Norway. Fodder varieties are not appropriate for nonfood purposes, being, for instance, too leafy. Therefore new types of cultivars have to be
developed. The ideal reed canary grass plant for non-food purposes has a tall and strong
straw, and few leaves. Nowadays, the main objectives in RCG breeding are: high dry
matter yield per ha, high straw fraction per plant, delayed seed scattering, equal maturing
of seeds, good germination rate, better winter hardiness, and resistance to pests and
diseases. The qualitative objectives are important as well. The abundance of minerals,
mainly silica (Si), potassium (K) and chlorine (Cl), must be low; otherwise they will
interfere with the process in both paper and energy production. New breeding programs
aiming to develop varieties for biofuel production were initiated about 10 years ago in
Sweden and Finland (Lindvall, 1997; Lewandowski et al., 2003).
The breeding of RCG for non-food purposes is underway in Finland and Sweden. The
first energy or industry variety on the market is Bamse. In a EU project, Bamse had
the best yields (20 % higher than forage varieties) in all participating countries. The best
forage varieties for industrial or energy use under Swedish conditions are Palaton and
Venture (Olsson, 2003).
30
2.1.1.3. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.)

2.1.1.3.1. Origin
Switchgrass is native to North America,
where it is broadly distributed. It was one of
the 3 major tall grass species present in the
Prairies prior to settlement (Girouard et al.,
1999). It is a warm season C4 grass that is
found throughout Canada, the United States,
and even parts of Mexico as shown in figure
7. More precisely, it occurs naturally within
the range of latitude 55N to central Mexico.
(Monti et al., 2001) Switchgrass belongs to
the family Gramineae, and the subfamily
Panicoideae. It occurs widely in grasslands
and non-forested areas, but more typically in
the Great Plains. (Lewandowski et al., 2003)
The ecological diversity of switchgrass can
be attributed to 3 main characteristics: it is
open pollinated (associated with genetic
diversity), it has a very deep and well
developed root system, and it has an
efficient physiological metabolism
(McLaughlin et al., 1999).
Figure 7: Range of Distribution of

Switchgrass in North America.
source: McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998
There are 2 ecotypes of switchgrass

classed by habitat preference, ploidy level,
and molecular markers. Upland ecotypes, which are hexaploid or octoploid, are described
as thin stemmed (which can lead to lodging problems). They are less productive than the
lowland ecotypes, but they can grow further up north because of higher resistance to cold
temperatures and frost. They have better resistance to drought than the lowland ecotypes
(Stroup et al., 2003).
Lowland ecotypes, usually tetraploids, are more commonly found on wetter sites.
Lowland ecotypes usually have larger leaves and stems (Stroup et al., 2003). They are
tall growing, more robust (thick stemmed), and more resistant to rusts than the upland
ecotypes. They have a bunchy type of growth. They require a longer growth period, and
are later maturing (Lewandowski et al., 2003).
Lowland varieties historically developed under floodplain conditions, while upland
varieties developed on drier upland sites. Yields up to 26 t ha-1 have been achieved with
some lowland varieties in Alabama. That is about twice as much as the yields achieved
with upland varieties. For Denmark however, upland varieties will provide the best
productivity at the minimum risk because lowland varieties are more susceptible to
winterkill (Girouard et al., 1999).
31
Switchgrass is a tall perennial C4 grass. In southern climates, the roots can grow very
deep. Ma et al. (2000) report roots as far as 3.3 m down in the soil profile. However, for
varieties like Cave-In-Rock (CIR), around 75% of the root mass is in the first 15 cm of
the soil, and 86% in the first 60 cm of soil (Ma et al., 2000).
In southern climates, the plant can grow up to 3 m
in height. The plant has short rhizomes, and has the
potential to form a sod. The inflorescence is a diffuse
panicle with spikelets at the end of long branches.
The seed weight for 1000 seeds of switchgrass is
about 1.17 g (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Switchgrass
seedlings might be hard to distinguish from grass
weeds. One of the key feature of the switchgrass
seedling is the tuft of hair (hairy ligule) present at the
point of attachment of the leaf blade and the culm
(stem) as shown in figure 8. The stem is also round,
and has a reddish tint (Girouard et al., 1999).
Figure 8: Switchgrass
Physiological Peculiarities
Source: Girouard et al, 1999
The expected lifespan for a switchgrass pasture is

10 years or more if well managed (Lewandowski et al., 2003). For energy use in
Denmark, we will consider the lifespan to be 10 years, although there may be possibilities
to keep the stand longer. Switchgrass is adapted for symbiosis with a mycorrhizal
associate which is naturally present in its native geographic range.
Switchgrass grows on a wide variety of soils ranging from sand to clay loam. It also
produces well on shallow rocky soils (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Switchgrass performs
best on well drained soils, but research is still required to define the minimal level of
drainage required. It is easier to establish on loam or sandy soils compared to clay soils.
This is due to the small size of the seed. Clay clumps will create poor contact of the seed
with the seedbed, leading to delayed or poor germination. Also, clay soils take longer to
warm up in the spring (Girouard et al., 1999).
Like the other grasses, switchgrass can be planted on land with low fertility because
of its extensive root system and perennial nature. Achieving high productivity on low to
medium fertility soil is easier with perennial grasses in general than with other crops. For
switchgrass, soil pH should be 6.5 or higher for best results (Girouard et al., 1999).
However, switchgrass can normally tolerate pH ranging from 4.9 to 7.6 (Lewandowski et
al., 2003), and research by Clark et al. (1999) has shown that an arbuscular mycorrhizal
associate allowed switchgrass to grow a lot better (26 times increase in yield) in soils as
acid as pH 4.
32
Madakaze et al. (1998) conducted trials in Quebec (in Canada) with several
switchgrass varieties for a short growing season. Quebecs climate is characterized by
late frosts in the spring (until end of May), cool temperatures in spring and in the
beginning of summer, and again in the fall (early frosts in early September). The growing
season is short: maximum of 100 days, with daylength of 15.67 hours on the 21st of
June). The site where the trials were conducted was situated at coordinates 45N. Results
indicated that the varieties ND3743, Dakota, Ottawa 3 and Pathfinder reached full
anthesis after 76, 87, 105, and 110 days respectively. A very common variety that is
recognized to have the best potential in northern US is the variety Cave-in-Rock (CIR),
an upland ecotype. This variety took 112-114 days to reach full anthesis in the Quebec
conditions. The varieties with shorter life cycles were associated with lower yields. These
differences in life cycle and yield levels among species indicate that there is hope for
breeding of productive varieties with short life cycles, which could be adapted to
Northern Europe conditions.
Experiments have shown that CIR is the most productive variety tested for Quebec
conditions (Madakaze et al., 1998; Girouard et al., 1999). However new switchgrass
varieties with improved seedling vigor and yield are currently under development in
Canada and in the US (Girouard et al., 1999). The variety CIR is probably the best suited
one for the Danish conditions at the moment, and will be the one considered for this
report.
Denmark is approximately situated between 54-60N of latitude, which is about at the
upper limit of the natural distribution of switchgrass in North America. Because of the
Gulf Stream, in Denmark and Europe, winter survival and killing frosts are much less of
an issue than in Northern parts of America. However, the tempering effect of the Gulf
Stream in the summer also lowers the summer temperatures in Denmark, and that raises
questions as to whether there is enough summer heat to support the most productive
upland varieties of switchgrass. Comparison of Quebec and Denmark climatic data can
be found in table 4. Research and trials of different varieties will have to be done in order
for organic producers to know which varieties are the best for the Danish conditions.
Table 4: Mean Monthly Temperature and Rainfall in Quebec, Denmark and
England (Rothamsted) During the Extended Growing Season
Month
Mean monthly temp (C)
Mean monthly rainfall (mm)
Quebec
Denmark Rothamsted Quebec
Denmark Rothamsted
March
-2.4
2.1
1.6-9
34
46
58
April
5.7
5.7
3.4-11.8
63
41
55
May
12.9
10.8
6.2-15.6
67
48
55
June
18.0
14.3
9-18.8
83
55
59
July
20.8
15.6
10.9-20.8
86
66
49
August
19.4
15.7
10.9-20.8
100
67
56
September
14.5
12.7
9.2-18.0
86
73
58
October
8.3
9.1
6.7-14.0
73
76
69
November
1.6
4.7
2.9-9.0
70
79
67
Source: Madakadze et al., 1998; UK Met Office, 2003; Cappelen and Jrgensen, 2003.
33
More generally, switchgrass needs warm temperatures for germination. It will

germinate very slowly when soil temperature is below 15.5C, and most seedlings will
germinate after 3 days at 29.5C (Hsu et al., 1985). This has implications for the
establishment of the crop in Denmark. It would probably have to be done fairly late in the
spring when the soils get warmer. A minimal temperature for switchgrass germination is
10.3C (Hsu et al., 1985).
The cold part of the year is also important; switchgrass requires short days to initiate
cold hardening (photoperiod 10h). Tests have shown that the LT50s (lethal temperature
where 50% of the stand is killed) are -4C prior to cold hardening, and -18C after one
month of slow cold hardening (Lewandowski et al., 2003). According to this data, winter
survival should not be a big problem in Denmark.
In terms of other ecological demands, CIR is tolerant of drought, which occasionally
occurs in the hot summer months in Denmark. But it is especially well adapted to wetter
areas and climates. Similarly to RCG, the good performances of switchgrass in rocky,
acidic and wet soils with low fertility make it a perfect candidate to be planted on
marginal land that cannot otherwise be used by organic farmers.
One of the biggest advantages of switchgrass over other rhizomatous warm season
grasses is that, like RCG, it can be propagated by seeds. Planting 8-10 kg of pure live
seeds (PLS) per hectare is recommended for a successful establishment. The seeds for
switchgrass are usually sold based on PLS, because the different seeds available at the
moment vary greatly in purity, and germination rate. This means that 2 different farmers
might have to plant different amounts (weight or volume) of seed to obtain the same
amount of PLS in the ground.
The seed sometimes has to go through a period of dormancy. Girouard et al. (1999)
indicate that acceptable germination rates are usually achieved after storage of the seed
for 1 year. Lewandowski et al. (2003) report that the seed has to be stored for 2-4 years in
a warm place to break dormancy; or that it has to be exposed to cold-wet conditions
(stratification). Stratification is probably the most time efficient way to break the seed
dormancy. Seed stratification can be done as follows: soaking seeds and storing them for
drainage in a cool place for 24h. Then placing them for about 4 weeks at a temperature
between 3.5 and 5.5C (refrigerator is good). For an organic farmer, stratification directly
out in the field is not recommended because of the weed problems that would be
associated with such a practice.
For decades, switchgrass has been used as a forage crop, seeded in pastures and
rangelands of the US Midwest. It has been primarily bred to enhance its nutritional value
as a forage crop. So characters like high leaf to stem ratio and high nutrient content have
been selected for over the past decades (Vogel et al., 1989).
34
Those characters are not particularly suited for biomass production. New objectives
for breeders include high yields, high cellulose ratio (which is important for high energy
conversion) and low ash content (which is important for the quality of the combustion,
and the longevity of the combustion system) (McLaughlin et al., 1999).
Since switchgrass became the centre of attention for the BFDP in the US, research on
the phenology, genetics and breeding characteristics have been started. Multiple breeding
approaches have been experimented as well (McLaughlin et al., 1999). The potential
genetic pool for switchgrass is very vast, which is natural, considering the great diversity
of habitats where it is found in the wilderness. This is in fact a characteristic that led the
BFDP to choose switchgrass as its focus.
There is also research being done about propagation techniques, physiology and
molecular genetics in switchgrass (McLaughlin et al., 1999). Tissue culture techniques
have gone a long way since the beginning of the 1990 in the US. At present, hundreds of
plants can be produced from a single parent plant, and are ready to be transplanted in the
field within 3 months. The interest of this is not for farmers, but breeders. Also,
techniques for production of suspension cultures have been developed. These techniques
have 2 major impacts for the research. They allow the rapid development of breeding
stocks of superior plants for further use in breeding, and they allow development of
organ-specific differentiating tissues, which provide new tools to explore genetic
transformations in switchgrass (McLaughlin et al., 1999).
There are great hopes for the development of varieties with shorter growing seasons
and still high productivity. Some of that breeding and research would have to be
conducted in northern countries like Canada, Denmark, Sweden or Finland.
35
SUMMARY
The information presented about the characteristics and the physiology of each of the
plants is summarized in table 5.
Table 5: Characteristics of Three Grasses
Miscanthus
Latin name
Taxonomy - Family
- Subfamily
Photosynthetic
pathway
Root system
Canopy height
Soils
pH
Water demand
Lifespan
Miscanthus spp.
Graminae
Andropogoneae
Reed canary grass

Switchgrass
Phalaris
Panicum virgatum
arundinacea
Graminae
Graminae
Pooidae
Panicoideae
C3
C4
C4
Deep and well

developed
2.5-3.5 m
Wide range
Deep and well

developed
0.6-2m
Wide range
Deep and well

developed
3m
Wide range
Optimum :
- well drained
humic soils
Tolerant to:
- low to medium
fertility soils
Optimum:
- wet humus rich
soils
Tolerant to:
- poorly drained
soils
- low to medium
fertility soils
Optimum: 6-7
Tolerant to low pH
- drought resistance
- tolerant to wet
places
- tolerant to sea
water with low salt
content
Optimum:
- well drained soils
Tolerant to:
- shallow rocky
soils
- low to medium
fertility soils
10-15 years
more than 10 years
Optimum: 5.5-7.5
Tolerant to low pH
- not tolerant to
stagnant water and
prolonged drought
period
- M.sinensis more
tolerant to water
deficit
15-(25) years
36
Optimum: 4.9-7.6
Tolerant to low pH
- drought tolerant
- well adapted to
wetter area
2.1.2. Cultural Practices

The following sub-section is focusing on the agronomic information about how to
establish, maintain, and harvest perennial grasses in organic systems. The various steps
involved in production will be taken, one by one, in a chronological order from the
beginning to the end of the growing season. Site preparation, crop establishment,
fertilization, weed, pests and disease management, harvest and storage will be
successively looked upon. Other considerations considering intercropping and mixtures
will be presented at the end of the subsection. Results concerning yields of the crops will
only be presented in the next sub-section because a number of practices described in this
part of the report will influence the yield data.
The main reasons for stand failure in grasses are usually poor seed quality, dormancy,
weed competition, poor over-wintering, environmental extremes and poor planting
methods (Monti et al., 2001; Lewandowski et al., 2003). There is not much a farmer can
do against environmental extremes except to accept them, and honour the strength of
nature. Dormancy, poor seed quality and problematic establishment have been addressed
earlier in the section on seeding material. The other potential reasons for failure can be
avoided with good crop management and appropriate cultural practices.
All the information that is available when it comes to the production methods and
cultural practices for perennial energy grasses are about conventional production.
Considerations for organic production of such crops in this report are based on
inferences, and are theoretical.
2.1.2.1. Site Preparation
As with any crop that is likely to be in the ground for a number of years, it is
important that certain issues (such as landscape, wildlife value, archaeology and public
access) be considered in the selection of a site. These perennial grasses, once established,
can reach high heights, and thus it is important to consider the visual impact this might
have on the local landscape, especially if the site is close to a footpath or a favorite local
view.
Furthermore, their perennial habit makes it very important that they are established
correctly to avoid future problems. The site has to be very well prepared in the first place
especially in the case where it is planed to grow them organically. Special attention will
have to be given to tillage of the soil prior to planting, and to site selection.
Organic farmers will have to work the soil extensively in the year previous to crop
establishment to make sure that the perennial weed populations in the field (especially
Erigeron repens) are as low as possible (Girouard et al., 1999). It is known that the ideal
for the quality of the soil is to avoid tilling and working the soil. No-till is however
impossible in organic because of the weed pressure, and therefore the need for herbicides
37
in no-till perennial grass stands. Organic farmers are then left with the option of
conventional tillage done before sowing, followed by good soil compaction with rollers.
To prepare the soil for planting and to provide a good rooting zone, ploughing to 2030 cm depth is recommended in the case of miscanthus (Lewandowski et al., 2000).
Since all tree species are deep rooting, this deep ploughing can be recommended also for
switchgrass and RCG. When planting perennial grasses in a field that previously was
forage or pasture field, tillage has to be done in the summer or the fall, so that sod clumps
can break down before planting (Girouard et al., 1999).
As perennial grasses are slow to form a canopy and compete poorly with weeds in the
year of establishment, application of a broad spectrum herbicide is generally
recommended before tillage. In organic, this will have to be replaced by several passes
with harrows and cultivators in the spring. Recommendations for conventional
production talk about 2 passes of harrow before planting followed by packing. Then, an
additional pass can be performed (false seeding) to stimulate annual weed growth. Those
are usually killed with an herbicide, but organic farmers could remove them mechanically
Another option could be burning the weeds. This last option might be the best
because it will not disturb the soil and bring seeds of weeds back on the surface.
However, it would be very expensive to perform such an operation before planting, and it
would consume a large quantity of fuel, which seems to go against the purpose of the
energy crop.
Lime application might also be beneficial as the recommended pH for the best
performance of the grasses is about 6.5 (Walworth, 1998; Girouard et al., 1999; Nixon
and Bullard, 2001). However, these three species can grow in more acid soils, so it will
be a judgment call from the organic farmer if he/she feels it is necessary or justified to
apply lime (Nixon and Bullard, 2001).
It might be important to check for the presence of the switchgrass mycorrhizal fungal
associate(s) in the soil in Denmark; or to introduce it at planting if no measures are taken
to correct soil pH.
2.1.2.2. Crop Establishment
Although the site preparation and other cultural practices are very similar for all the
three species, crop establishment is different. This difference comes from the fact that,
contrary to RCG and switchgrass, miscanthus cannot be established by seeds.
38
Miscanthus
As was mentioned earlier, miscanthus is
established by planting rhizomes. They are
susceptible to cold weather. To avoid frost damage
planting should be done when the frost period
(temperatures <-3C) is over, and when there are low
risks of late frost occurrence (Jrgensen and
Kristensen, 1996). Irrigation after planting improves
plant establishment rates, and it is necessary for plant
survival when drought occurs (Lewandowski et al.,
2000). However, in Denmark conditions it might not
be necessary.
Figure 9: Bespoke Planter for

Miscanthus Planting
Planting can be carried out using conventional

planting machinery such as semi-automatic potato
planters or manure spreaders. The Bespoke planter
(figure 9) has been designed specifically for planting
miscanthus by Hvidsted Energy Forest in Denmark. Source: Nixon and Bullard (2001)
This machine works by planting two rows of
rhizomes into a shallow furrow opened by shares. Once the rhizomes are planted, the soil
is moved back to cover them, and then rolled. Preliminary tests have shown good
practical performance, and good plant emergence. However, planting with a potato
planter enables accurate placement and good depth control, both of which are important
for good establishment success. The potato planter should be followed by a heavy roller
to aid soil consolidation (Nixon and Bullard, 2001). Organic farmers who already own
such machinery should not consider investing into specialized equipment.
Optimal planting density is likely to be between 1-3 plants per m2 (Lewandowski et
al., 2000). Miscanthus spreads by rhizomes to cover all the available ground so a wide
spacing may be more economic even though initial yield will be lower. Advantages of a
higher planting density include higher yields in the first 2-5 years, but these yield
increases, do not compensate for higher planting costs (Lewandowski et al., 2000). For
organic farmers, it would probably be better to use higher planting densities for
miscanthus as it would decrease problems with weeds in the year of establishment. The
optimal planting depth is between 5 and 15 cm, and will depend on the planting
machinery used (Nixon and Bullard, 2001).
The optimal planting date for rhizomes is March-April in northern Europe, but it will
depend on local conditions (Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001). Early planting takes advantage
of spring-time soil moisture, and allows an extended first season of growth. This is
important, because it enables development of a larger rhizome system, which will make
the plant more robust in future years, and will allow the crop to better tolerate drought
and frost (Nixon and Bullard, 2001).
The main problem of miscanthus production in northern Europe is the poor overwintering of the rhizomes of the productive genotype Miscanthus x giganteus in the first
39
winter after planting (Lewandowski et al., 2003). They can be destroyed by cold and/or
wet conditions. This poor over-wintering is caused by the fact that M. x giganteus, as a
late flowering genotype, stays green during the winter in northern sites such as Denmark.
Autumn frosts may kill the green leaves. This may lead to insufficient relocation of
nutrients and assimilates from the aboveground shoots to the rhizomes in autumn,
reducing both the over wintering capacity and regrowth potential in the following spring
(Clifton-Brown et al., 2001). M. sinensis and its genotypes have superior survival rates to
M. x giganteus (Eppel-Hotz et al., 1998 cited in Lewandowski et al., 2003). Therefore,
M.sinensis is more suitable for Denmark because it can senesce and translocate nutrients
to the rhizomes before winter comes. Overall, over wintering and re-growth the following
spring is better.
The artificial freezing test made by Clifton-Brown and Lewandowski (2001) showed
that rhizomes of M. sinensis and its hybrids could survive temperatures below -4.5C, but
rhizomes of M. x giganteus are killed at approximately -3C. It can be concluded that M.
sinensis and its hybrids are recommended for the regions where soil temperatures at 5 cm
depth are likely to fall below -3C.
Agronomic knowledge may also help to improve over-wintering in the establishment
year. There is a strong influence of rhizome size on plant emergence and winter survival.
It means that winter survival and plant emergence are better with larger rhizome pieces.
The best results are obtained when rhizomes are 12 cm long (Schwarz et al., 1999).
Covering with a straw mulch before the winter, and deeper planting of rhizomes also
increase winter survival, and establishment rates (Heaton et al., 2002). There are no
reports about over-wintering problems in the second and subsequent winters in M. x
giganteus (Lewandowski et al., 2000).
Reed Canary Grass and Switchgrass
Seedling establishment is one of the most critical stages in the maintenance of a RCG
or switchgrass stand, especially in sloping areas. Important factors that will determine the
success are: seedbed compaction, accurate seed placement, and seeding time (Monti et
al., 2001). Because of their low competitiveness after establishment, both grasses should
not be undersown in any other crop.
Packing the soil just before and after sowing is highly recommended, especially on
clay soils. A good general rule is that a footprint should barely show in the soil before
seeding. Monti et al. (2001) have shown that emergence of switchgrass was significantly
higher when their silt-loam soil had been rolled once or twice compared to tilled unrolled
soil. They also showed that the double rolled (before and after seeding) treatment
consistently led to higher seedling emergence than the single rolled one, although the
difference was not statistically significant. Unpublished observations reported by the
same authors have shown that tractor tire tracks had better seedling emergent than noncompacted soil. Compacted soil offers a better seed-soil contact, and better moisture
retention, hence the increases in seedling numbers. It also reduces time required for
emergence.
40
After that, seeding can be performed using the same technology as for other grasses
(Olsson, 2003). It is recommended to use a regular cereal seed drill equipped with a
forage seed box. A forage seed planter can also be used. The seeding depth is critical for
both species, and it should be between 0.5 and 1.0 cm. (Girouard et al., 1999; Monti et
al., 2001). RCG is light dependant for germination. Using a sowing depth of 3 cm will
delay switchgrass emergence by about 4 days. Deeper sowing will lead to poor
emergence, and a thin stand (Monti et al., 2001).
For switchgrass, recommendations for the quantity of seeds to use are between 8-11
kg ha-1 of PLS (Girouard et al., 1999; Lewandowski et al., 2003), although in several
research trials in Quebec, 6 kg ha-1 have been used with satisfying results (Girouard et al.,
1995). For conventional practices, Sladden et al. (1995) (cited in Lewandowski, 2003)
recommend a row spacing of 80 cm as this led to higher yields in the 2nd and 3 rd years
than a spacing of 20 cm. However, for organic, a 20 cm row spacing, or broadcast
followed by packing is probably more recommendable because of weed competition. A
stand is considered well established if 10-32 seedlings m-2 can be found after the first
year. For reed canary grass, seeds are normally drilled in rows, and a 12.5 cm row
spacing is commonly used. The recommended seeding rate is 15 kg ha-1 (Lewandowski et
al., 2003).
The third very important factor for successful establishment is timing of seeding. For
switchgrass, in Ontario, recommended sowing dates are from May 15th to June 10th. The
crucial decision factor is to see if the soil is relatively warm (Girouard et al., 1999). As
mentioned in the section about physiological demands, soil temperature ideally has to be
above 15.5C, and the warmer, the better. The minimum soil temperature for germination
is 10.3C (Hsu et al., 1985). For Denmark, this means that sowing of switchgrass should
probably be done in end of May to mid June, depending on specific soil and weather
conditions.
Reed canary grass develops rather slowly the first summer and should therefore be
sown in spring or early summer to obtain a well established stand before winter. Sowing
is recommended from middle of May to middle of June. If the soil is warm and moisture
conditions are good the germination will occur after 7-10 days. Otherwise it could take
up to 30 days (Landstrm, 1996).
Crop establishment information for the 3 grasses is summarised in table 6:
Table 6: Crop Establishment of Three Perennial Grasses
Miscanthus
Reed Canary Grass
Switchgrass
-2
planting density/row spacing
1-3 plants m
12.5 cm
20 (80) cm
Seeding rate
15 kg ha-1
8-11 kg ha-1
planting/seeding depth
5-15 cm
0.5-1.0 cm
0.5-1.0 cm
mid-May to
end of May to
planting/seeding date
March-April
mid-June
mid-June
41
The use of conventional no-till establishment systems would greatly reduce costs,
energy consumption, and speed up the operations without affecting the success of the
stand. It also requires less seeds (1-2 kg less per hectare) than conventional planting
methods, and would significantly reduce disturbance of the soil system. (Monti et al.,
2001) In slopey areas where risks of erosion are the highest, considering no-till planting,
and a single use of herbicide for establishment could be a better idea than trying to do it
organically Such questions have to be addressed when we consider the production of
perennial grasses in ecological agriculture. Is ecological agriculture the best way to
preserve the soil and the environment when producing bio-energies? Is it with ecological
agriculture that we will maximize the goods and services provided by the agroecosystem, while minimizing the costs (in time, money, energy, work)? We will come
back to those questions.
2.1.2.3. Fertilization
Fertilization of perennial grasses in an organic system might be complicated. The
usual approach for establishment of a non-leguminous perennial crop in organic
agriculture would be to fertilize with manure or add compost as a longer term soil
amendment while the soil is being prepared for planting. However this might not be
appropriate for establishment of perennial energy grasses, mainly because of the
increased weed pressure. New means of accessing nutrients will have to be explored by
the organic movement and certifying agencies. In this sub-section, we will look into more
details at the fertilization requirements for each of the species.
A very important management option for organic farmers would be to adopt spring
harvest or late winter harvest in Denmark. Leaving the stand up over the fall and winter
would have several advantages. It protects the soil from erosion more than simple
stubbles. Also, the standing biomass gets leached out of a lot of the nutrients that thereby
return to the soil. Some of the leaves shrivel and fall on the soil where they will
decompose also. The plant has more time to translocate some nutrients to its root system
where they will be kept until the next growing season (Wright, 1994). All this will lead to
lower fertilization requirements for the stand the following year. Yields might be reduced
by up to 20%, but this can be compensated by augmented yields the following years, and
improved quality of the harvested biomass due to lower mineral content (McLaughlin et
al., 1999).
Miscanthus
The annual fertiliser demands of miscanthus are low compared to annual crops, and
other perennial grasses (Lewandowski and Heinz, 2003). This is due to the good nutrient
use efficiency of the plant and its capacity to re-cycle large amounts of nutrients into the
rhizomes during the later part of the growing season. In spring, these reserves are
mobilized to be brought back into the new shoots. Nutrient off-take at spring harvest is
low since the leaves predominately remain in the field. It is only necessary to account for
the amount of nutrients removed in the stems. This is equivalent to about 3-5 kg N, 0.5 1 kg P, 4-9 kg K and 0.8-1.0 kg Ca per ton dry matter harvested (Lewandowski et al.,
2000; Lewandowski et al., 2003).
42
For the development of the rhizome system, an application of 60 kg N ha-1 was found
to be optimal in the year of establishment (Lewandowski et al., 2000). The nutrient
requirements during the following seasons are met by leaf litter decomposition, leaching
from leaves, natural soil nutrient reserves, rhizome reserves and atmospheric depositions.
Trials revealed that miscanthus does not show a yield response to different amounts
of N and K fertilizer from the second or third year onwards, under most agricultural
conditions (Kaltschmitt, 1998; Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001; Lewandowski et al., 2003).
Furthermore, applying K did have an effect on biomass quality by increasing the N and K
content in the stems, and the Cl content in both stems and leaves; all of which reduce the
combustion quality (Kaltschmitt, 1998).
It may be concluded that application of fertilizers will only be necessary on soils with
very low nutrient reserves (Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001). To meet N requirements, 50-70
kg N ha-1 may be given at the onset of sprouting from the rhizomes (Lewandowski et al.,
2000). The fertilization of miscanthus will also depend on the genotype. It seems that in
the Danish conditions, M.giganteus will require more nutrients than M. sinensis due to
insufficient relocation of nutrients in the fall.
Reed Canary Grass
When reed canary grass is grown as a bioenergy crop, the recommended levels of
fertilizers differ from those for fodder production. N fertilization requirement is half of
that for feed production. Experience from Swedish field trials over almost 10 years
resulted in the following recommendations (Lewandowski et al., 2003):
In the year of sowing an amount of 40 kg N, 15 kg P and 50 kg K ha-1 is optimal for a
good establishment of the crop. However, these recommendations are for conventional
farming, and as discussed earlier, the fertilization would probably promote the weeds to
the detriment of the crop being established. Also, obtaining this exact ratio of nutrients
would be problematic when using organic fertilizers. The following year, the
economically justifiable rates are 100, 15 and 80 kg ha-1 of N, P and K, respectively.
Amounts of P and K are of course depending on the fertility of the soil.
The fertilization during the production years will be based on compensation of
nutrients removed with harvest (Olsson, 2003).The amount of nutrients removed from the
field with the harvested crop showed great difference between August and spring harvest.
When the grass was fertilized with 100 kg N, 100 kg K and 25 kg P per ha, nearly all
supplied nutrients were removed with the crop in the August harvest system. But, in the
spring harvest only about half of the supplied N and P, and only about one third of the
supplied K were removed with the crop (Clifton-Brown et al., 2001). This implies that
plant nutrients can, to a large extent, recirculate in the delayed harvest system due to the
translocation of nutrients back to the rhizomes at the end of the growing season, and to
the leaching of nutrients from leaves back to the soil during the winter. This reduces the
fertilization requirements. If the harvested yield is 7.5 t DM ha-1, then the recommended
43
fertilization rates are 50-60 kg N, 5-8 kg P, and 20 kg K ha-1, every spring (Lewandowski
et al., 2003; Olsson, 2003).
Contrary to the recommendations mentioned above, several other experiments
showed no yield response to different levels of N fertilization. Although crop nitrogen
concentrations were highest in the highest N treatment, this did not result in higher
harvested yields. Nitrogen fertilization increased concentrations of N, P, K and S at
harvest, and thus reduced the crop quality as a biofuel. (Nixon and Bullard, 1997;
Katterer et al., 1998).
Switchgrass
Switchgrass is a good scavenger for nutrients. Many studies recommend that no N
fertilizer is applied during the establishment year because it would stimulate weed growth
(this is one of the main causes for bad stand establishment) (Girouard et al., 1999).
Knowing that weed control will be one of the organic farmers biggest challenges in
establishing a stand, fertilization before planting should definitely be avoided.
Work by Christian et al. (1999b) has shown no response of switchgrass to N
application in the years following establishment. Work by other researchers, however,
shows that switchgrass responds significantly to the first 50 kg of N only. After such a
rate, only minimal increases are achieved (Turnhollow et al., 1988). Wright (1994)
reports that economically viable yields will require 50-100 kg N ha-1yr-1 in the US, and
concludes that rates above 70 kg N ha-1yr-1 typically have little or no effect. A
management guide produced in Canada recommends 50-60 kg N ha-1yr-1for Ontario
(Girouard et al., 1999).
For the Danish situation however, one could expect yields below average because of
the short growing season and cool temperatures. So it is unlikely, if any fertilizer is
needed, that no more than 50 kg N ha-1yr-1 would be necessary. Also, over-fertilization
with N results in crop lodging; and this is not desirable since it reduces yields, and creates
problems at harvest (Girouard et al., 1999). As for the other crops, need for fertilization is
very dependent on the location, and on the level of fertility of the field. Reynolds et al.
(2000) have shown in the US that switchgrass variety CIR removed an average of 54 kg
N ha-1 from the soil in a one cut system where harvest was performed in the fall. For all
three grasses presented, as well as for other energy crops like willow, about 50 kg of N
per year is a very common figure. It is rather low compared to grain crops, and the reason
for this is that there is not a large amount of protein removed with the crop at the harvest.
What is preferably harvested is carbon containing material: lignin, cellulose, etc.
In regards to other nutrients, they are usually not required on medium to rich soils.
Switchgrass rarely responds to potassium and phosphorus fertilizers. It relies on
mycorrhizae for P uptake. Presence of this mycorrhizal associate will have to be tested in
Danish soils if switchgrass fields are to be established. Also, unless levels of K are less
than 81 ppm, and levels of P lower than 10 ppm, fertilization should not be necessary. It
might be a good idea to monitor these nutrients after 2-3 years (Girouard et al., 1999).
Potential options for organic farmers to supply those nutrients include manures, but also
44
rock phosphate, ashes from combustion of biomass, and even bone or blood meal. The
use of these products is subject to many debates.
Overall, in practice, incorporation of manure before planting is discussable. It would
be a source of slow-release nutrients for the first years of the plantation, but could lead to
weed management problems. Also, the establishment year is the one where the perennial
grass crop is the least efficient at recuperating applied available nutrients.
Other options for fertilization while the crop is established include top dressing of
manure and slurries. Farm yard manure can be top-dressed using a conventional manure
spreader, and slurry or liquid manure can be applied using trail hoses; but both these
options will be associated with high ammonia losses. The best option is to use an
injection machine for slurry or liquid manure. Approximate numbers obtained in a
conversation with Sven Sommer a senior scientist at the Danish Department of
Agricultural Engineering (Research Centre Bygholm) indicate that if 30t ha-1 of pig
slurry are applied on grasslands, ammonia losses would be around 30 % for trail hose
application, and 15 % if it was injected to a depth of about 5 cm. Another possibility to
try avoiding ammonia losses could be to add water to the liquid manure before injection,
which would increase infiltration, and reduce volatilization. It would also allow to apply
smaller amounts of nutrients per hectare. Application should be done as early as possible
in the spring for a fall harvest system; and just after harvest for a spring harvest system.
The efficiency of the application methods would also need to be tested for PRG
specifically. Miscanthus for instance is known to form a thick layer of mulch on the
ground, which could impede infiltration of the nutrients.
The decision to fertilize or not would in term come back to the farmer. It seems that it
will depend mainly on the soil fertility and farm resources, whether the crop will be
fertilized or not. The analysis has to be case specific. According to our assumptions,
organic farmers are more likely to use poor, marginal, set-aside land for production of
biomass feedstock. This suggests that low levels of fertilization might trigger a response
in crop yield. But fertilization would have to be an economically sound choice for the
farmer.
If, for example, a dairy farmer with excess nutrients thinks about fertilizing an energy
crop, he probably should top dress his manure in the spring after harvest. On the other
hand, if a farmer is using compost as a soil amendment (either prepared at the farm or
bought from outside) it would probably not be rational to use it on an energy crop
(because of the value, and the work invested in the compost). When fertilizer sources are
restricted on the farm, a low input system is more appropriate for the energy crop field,
and can give high energy outputs as well.
The most rational way to fertilize energy crops would probably be to use wastes
products such as ashes, blood meal, bone meal, excess pig slurry from neighboring farms
or even human sewage sludge, provided they do not contain heavy metals above harmful
thresholds, or EU regulations. It was found that sewage sludge fulfilled miscanthus
nutrient demands by Nixon and Bullard (2001). Grass ash and sewage sludge have also
45
been used in RCG field trials in Sweden with good results, both in yield and quality of
biomass (Landstm, 1996.). These options at the moment are not accepted by the
ecological agriculture regulations. However, they seem to be the most sensible way to
fertilize biomass production while re-integrating important nutrients in the food chain. If
biomass feedstock is to be seriously included in organic production, these options will
have to be considered; and issues of nutrient cycling and recuperation will have to be
balanced with public trust, confidence, and potential for scandals. At the moment, there is
a discussion about it in the organic movement and it is possible that the future will bring
some changes in organic farming regulations concerning the production of non-food
crops (Dalgaard, 2003).
More research would probably be useful to evaluate yield response to different levels
and types of fertilizers in Denmark, especially for switchgrass which has not been tried
yet. The potential environmental and health threats associated with some of the potential
nutrient sources for energy production should also be evaluated.
2.1.2.4. Weeds, Pests and Diseases
2.1.2.4.1. Weeds
Weeds compete with the crop for light, water and nutrients, and can reduce yields. In
the year of planting, the three PRG compete poorly with weeds, so weed control is
needed (Lewandowski et al., 2000). Weeds will be a major challenge in organic
production of perennial grasses for energy. Particular care will have to be taken before
seeding, but also during the establishment year of the grass stand. Seeds of reed canary
grass and switchgrass are generally rather slow to germinate and they show various
degree of dormancy
The general strategy to control weeds in energy grass fields is to use herbicides, apart
from that, options are very limited. Mechanical weed control with a long tine (finger)
harrow and row cultivation is possible (Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996). Girouard et al.
(1999) also suggest that in the event of a weed invasion in a switchgrass stand, it is
possible to do several clippings just above the switchgrass canopy. This technique allows
to slow down weed growth, and to prevent weeds from outcompeting the grass. However,
the drawback is the potential to remove growing switchgrass, which may delay the
establishment of the crop. This second technique could probably be used with the other
crops as well.
A third strategy from Andersen (1995) reported in Lewandowski et al. (2003) is to
perform infrequent grass clippings at 6-9 cm from the soil. This allows to kill or slow
down broadleaf annuals, while the grasses, with their rhizomes and extensive root
system, should be able to recover. And even if the seedlings are slow to establish the first
year and the fields are completely covered with weeds, experience from the Netherlands
shows that there is still potential for the stand to recover on the second year with an early
start in the spring. (Wolf and Fiske, 1995)
46
The precautionary principle applies here again, and the best option for organic
farmers is probably to make sure that they grow the right crop the year before, that will
reduce weed pressure the following year. It could be interesting for organic farmers to
think of a rotation a few years before establishing a grass stand. They could grow crops
like buckwheat or oats that are known to clean the soil and compete well with weeds.
They could follow them with a clover grass mixture that could be cut regularly as a mean
of controlling perennial weeds. There are several possibilities for rotations and intelligent
planning to help clever organic farmers succeed in the establishment of a perennial
energy grass stand. Experiments by individual farmers, trials by researchers, and
diffusion of knowledge by the advisors will be necessary and could greatly help organic
farmers interested to start with these new crops.
Once the crop is established, it has a rapid growth in the spring that suppresses late
germinating weeds by reducing light penetration to the under storey, and weed control is
no longer necessary. Miscanthus forms a deep leaf litter layer that prevents germination
of most weeds (Christian et al., 1999a; Lewandowski et al., 2003). RCG starts growth in
late winter and successfully competes with weeds. (Lewandowski et al., 2003). Of the 3
species, switchgrass is probably the one starting growth the latest in the spring. If weed
control happens to be necessary in one of the grasses, the early spring, between harvest
and initiation of re-growth, is the ideal time for weed control by mechanical means
(Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001).
2.1.2.5.1. Pests and Diseases
It is generally recognized that pest and disease problems in PRG are very low
(Girouard et al., 1999; Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001), and this actually is an argument in
their favour when compared with other types of biomass feedstocks. There are however
insects and diseases that have been observed on one or the other of the PRG crops. There
are possibilities that they could develop to become problems in the future.
Reed canary grass was initially thought to be almost free of pests. The first pests were
observed in Finland. Vasarainen (1999) reported an observation study which revealed
that the most common group of insects occurring in RCG was leafhoppers. The most
abundant leafhopper species was Balclutha punctata. It is a polyphage living on several
grasses, and it is the most common leafhopper on winter crops. Larvae development takes
place in the panicles of grasses and slows down the germination of seeds (Varasianen,
1999). Gall midges (Mayetioal) which feed on RCG straw have also been discovered in
Sweden and Finland (Pahkala, 1999).
Insect pests like Tethredinidae spp. and Mesapamae secalis have occurred on
miscanthus in Denmark but without significant effects on the crop. (Jrgensen and
Kristensen, 1996). In switchgrass, pest problems in the US include potential damage to
seedlings by grasshoppers, crickets and corn flea beetles in the 1st year (Wolf and Fiske,
1995). Other insects might become a problem as well in Denmark. Experience only will
tell about such possibilities.
47
Concerning diseases, the miscanthus species are known to be susceptible to some

species in the areas where they are native (Asia) but, as of yet, none of these have been
reported in England, which is close to Denmark (Nixon and Bullard, 2001). To date, there
are no reports of any plant disease significantly limiting production of miscanthus in nonnative areas, but the crop is known to be susceptible to Fusarium, to Barley Yellow
Dwarf Luteovirus and to miscanthus blight (Leptosphaeria sp.) (Lewandowski et al.,
2000).
Plant diseases are not a serious problem in RCG either. Leaf spot diseases have
occasionally been observed on reed canary grass but there are no reports whether those
leaf spots cause any economic losses. So far no viral diseases have been observed in RCG
fields. Ergot induced by Claviceps purpurea has commonly occurred in the RCG
panicles. In the beginning of the infection, the affected seeds excrete honeydew which
attracts flying insects. They might spread the disease further. Ergot apparently causes no
great damage to RCG, but the insects could spread this disease to cereal fields. This could
become a serious problem for organic farmers as ergot in wheat for instance would lead
to unmarketability of the crop. The tolerance level for ergots for human consumption is
0.001 % by weight, but in practice, presence of the disease may lead to rejection of the
crop (The Scottish Agricultural College, u). For switchgrass, Wolf and Fiske (1995)
report potential for diseases like Panicum mosaic virus or leaf rusts (Puccinia spp.) in the
US.
At present it seems that pests and diseases are not a problem in perennial grasses. But
it will need further investigation. So far the production or perennial grasses for energy
purposes has been done mainly at the research scale, and the experiments havent been
lasting as long as it is expected in practice. A crop which is staying on the same site
several years will provide good conditions for undisturbed development of pests and
diseases. Options for biocontrol of potential insects and diseases still have to be
researched, and might be found in strategies to manage other types of grasslands for
pests.
2.1.2.5. Harvest and Storage
2.1.2.5.1. Harvesting Time
The next step that the farmer has to worry about is the harvest. Perennial grasses
develop slowly the first year; and the first harvest is therefore recommended after the
second year of growth when the root and rhizome system is better developed. Also the
yield, which would be obtained in the first year, is not worth harvesting. The stems do not
need to be cut, and can be left in the field until the following season. From the second
year onwards grasses can be harvested annually (Girouard et al., 1999; Nixon and
Bullard, 2001; Olsson, 2003).
Harvesting of perennial grasses for energy purposes is recommended only once a
year. Multiple cutting would over-exploit the rhizomes and decrease the sustainability of
48
the ley (Lewandowski et al., 2003).This should be kept in mind especially if the grasses
will be grown in a low-input system in organic farming.
Harvest could be done either in autumn, winter or spring (Venendaal et al., 1997).
The choice of time for the harvest influences significantly the yield as well as the fuel
quality. When growing perennial grasses for energy purposes the delayed harvest system
is recommended for all the three species (Burvall, 1997; Girouard et al., 1999;
Lewandowski and Heinz, 2003).
Spring Delayed Harvest
The principle of delayed harvest is that the crop is left on the field during winter and
harvested as a wilted dry material in the following spring. (Landstrm and Olson, 1997)
The delayed harvest system has several advantages (Burvall, 1997; Landstrm, 1996,
Girouard et al., 1999; Kristensen, 1999b):
It is possible to harvest the biomass during the favourable weather conditions and
obtain a material which is dry enough for storage (10-20%) without artificial drying,
which substantially reduces the production costs.
Landstrm reported there are indications that the rhizomes will be more developed and
dense in delayed harvest system, since the grass is allowed to grow undisturbed
during the whole growing season. It can also build up a store of carbohydrates in the
underground parts. A sufficient reserve of carbohydrates is important for the plants to
survive a long winter and for an early start of growth in spring.
Since the soil is covered during the winter, the risk of soil erosion is decreased.
Weed pressure is also reduced.
Fewer nutrients are removed from the field in form of harvested material. That reduces
the fertilization requirements and enables sustainable low input system, which has
both environmental and economic benefits
Another essential advantage is that the quality of grass as a fuel is increased. It will be
discussed in the chapter Biomass characteristics.
The delayed harvest system has also some disadvantages:
The main disadvantage is that there are major losses of material during the autumn and
winter (Hadders and Olsson, 1997). Lewandowski et al. (2000) reported that the
extent of these losses for miscanthus crop can range from 3-25% by December to 1525% by March.
Under some conditions the grass can be very dry, (i.e. with water content below 15%)
and extremely brittle. This can lead to large material losses during the mechanical
harvest. For this reason, research is under way to develop more gentle, yet still
effective techniques for harvesting.(Hadders and Olsson, 1997)
Another consideration is that when the harvest is performed in the spring, the biomass
is not required by the heating market. The grass must be stored until the following
49
autumn and winter. However, as the dry matter is low, there should be no risk of
moulding and fungal attack during the storage (Venendaal et al., 1997).
The spring harvest can be performed as soon as the soil is dry enough when there is
no risk of soil compaction and damage of soil surface by the harvesting machinery. The
harvest must occur before the new shoots have reached 10-15 cm. After this stage the
green shoots will influence the fuel quality. Also the new shoots can be damaged with
lower yields in next year as a result (Zan et al., 2001; Olsson, 2003).
The available time for harvest varies a lot between years and areas of production as
well as different soil types. On heavy clay soils the average period with appropriate
conditions for harvest can be very short (Olsson, 2003).
Concerning the harvesting date, miscanthus in Denmark has normally been
harvested from late March until the beginning of May. This timing has a good effect on
quality improvement for all miscanthus genotypes (Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996).
The harvest time for the other two species can be only assumed from the data coming
from other countries. The delayed harvest of reed canary grass in Sweden is normally
performed in April to May (Olsson, 2003). The climate in Sweden and Denmark is
similar, so we can assume that the harvest in Denmark could be done at the same time,
maybe little bit earlier. For switchgrass, Girouard et al. (1999) report that it initiates
growth only at the end of May or early June. Growth might occur a bit earlier in
Denmark, but it would still leave plenty of time for the farmer to harvest in spring or late
winter.
Autumn and Winter Harvest
Advantages of autumn and winter harvest might be:
A first advantage of late autumn or early winter harvesting, compared to the spring one,
will be an increase in harvest yield ( e.g. for miscanthus nearly twice as much), due to
the fact that the upper part of the stems and the leaves, which will usually break off
before spring, will be included in the harvested material. The extent of the losses
depends on weather and location (Lewandowski et al., 2000).
Moreover, if the material is delivered directly to a district heating plant or a CHP-plant
during the heating season, considerable savings in storage expenses can be achieved
(Kristensen, 1999b).
Autumn harvest has also environmental benefits, such as less soil compaction. At the
end of winter and in the spring, the soil is wet, and use of heavy machinery may
damage the soil (Ercoli et al., 1999).
However there may be some disadvantages:
Disadvantages of the autumn and early winter harvest include high moisture content in
the crop (60-70%) which means that it has to be dried. Drying is an energy
50
consuming, and expensive process (Landstrm, 1996; Girouard et al., 1999;

Lewandowski et al., 2003). However, the energy gained by doubling the yield is
higher than the energy needed to dry biomass. Furthermore, the water content can be
reduced by pressing the crop which is less expensive.
Also the combustion quality of the crop for direct heating is poor because of higher
mineral content. When harvested in autumn the crop will also need additional
fertilization compared to harvest in spring (Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996).
Hence, when choosing an appropriate harvest date, the biomass producer faces a
conflict between yield and quality optimisation. Harvest in autumn or early winter is
higher compared to spring one but if perennial grasses are grown for energy purposes in
organic farming, spring harvest is preferred because of the advantages mentioned above.
2.1.2.5.2. Harvesting Technology
Harvesting and processing (pre-treatment) covers all the necessary steps to make the
grown energy crop ready for conversion into electricity, heat or a liquid transport fuel.
The following steps can be distinguished: harvesting (mowing, chopping), packaging
(baling); densification (briquetting, pelletizing), transport; storage and drying (outdoor,
indoor; natural, artificial drying) (Venendaal et al., 1997).
Survey and experiments have shown that adapted machines and techniques developed
for conventional agricultural crops can be used for harvest of perennial grasses
(Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996). However, current harvesting techniques pose some
problems with miscanthus. The plant becomes very tall and stems are thicker and
stronger than straw or grass. These characteristics of miscanthus create a need for the
development of efficient harvesters capable of handling more resistant materials, and
stems up to 3.5 m in height (Nixon and Bullard, 2001).
The harvest can be performed in two different ways: the multi or single-phase
procedure. Multi-phase procedure is done with several machines. It enables drying of the
crop in swath. This way, the biomass dries faster than as a standing crop. The Singlephase procedure involves mowing followed by chopping, baling or pelletizing in one
machine. This procedure saves on labour, time and losses incurred in picking-up
(Kristensen, 1998; Lewandowski et al., 2000).
There could be some concerns about soil compaction, and potential effect on yields
with the multi-phase method in which several passes are needed. Lewandowski et al.
(2000) reported that under normal soil conditions, multiple passes of machinery would
not decrease yields, as long as the contact pressure of the tires is less than 2 bar (200
kPa).
51
Harvesting
Mowing
In Denmark, mowing of miscanthus is carried out with conventional grass mowers
(e.g. Taarup type 307). The power requirement, however, will be higher than for normal
grass because the plant has long and sturdy stems. The mower should be equipped with
an effective crimper to break the long stems. If it isnt, it will be impossible to collect the
material without great losses and many breakdowns (Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996).
Once the crop has been mowed and crimped, collection and baling with a big baler will
not pose any problems.
A Swath mower which is modified for tough stalk can also be used. Swathing is
another option to avoid the problems of the baler with picking-up the bulk and long
material. It was found that a rotary mower does not work satisfactorily due to the blunting
and plugging of the mower unit by the hard miscanthus stems. A double knife mower is
more suitable (Walsh, 1998).
Reed canary grass and switchgrass can be gently mown with conventional swathers
or windrowers. (Venedaal et al., 1997; Girouard et al., 1999). Compared to miscanthus,
disc rotary mower is effective for harvesting reed canary grass and switchgrass. It is
probably because they do not have so thick stems like miscanthus. Finger bars can be
also used (Hadders and Olsson, 1996).
The mower conditioner can also be used but is not recommended because of
problems with shattering and losses (Hadders and Olsson, 1996; Venedaal et al., 1997;
Girouard et al., 1999).
Chopping
If the desired outlet is chopped material, then a conventional forage harvester can be
used for all three grasses. For miscanthus, it is suitable to use a forage harvester equipped
with a maize header that is independent of row intervals (Jrgensen and Kristensen,
1996). Advantages of this technique are that harvesting can be performed without
interruptions, and that collection of moist fragments of leaves scattered on the ground can
be avoided. For miscanthus is also possible to use a forage chopper with a maize header
and a big baler (Hesston type 4700) in one unit (Venendaal, 1997; Kristensen, 1999; Zan
et al., 2001).
A general recommendation is to harvest at 10 cm above the ground to avoid
damaging the crop (Zan et al., 2001). However Pahkala (1999) report that lowering the
cutting height from 10 cm to 5 cm would increase the dry matter yield of 20 %. But we
think that such a low cutting height is not possible from the practical point of view
especially on marginal soils, which can be stony. Cutting so low also represents a greater
risk for the stand.
52
Packaging
Baling
Baling can be performed to make round or square bales (Venendaal et al., 1997). Big
high density square bales are the most favorable due to the higher effectiveness of
handling, transport and storage. (Pedersen and Gylling, 1999). For example a truck
loaded with the square bales can transport 60-80 % more biomass than when loaded with
round bales (Suokannas, 1999). The use of large square bales is also recommended for
the industrial market. All machinery use for baling perennial grasses is commercially
available (Pedersen and Gylling, 1999).
The balers Hesston 4800-4900 seem to be the most suitable solution because they are
capable to produce bales with a dry matter density between 130 and 150 kg m-3 and a
weight of about 500 kg. It was found that one of the disadvantages of the big balers
machines is their low capacity (approximately 1 ha hr-1) (Walsh, 1998; Nixon and
Bullard, 2001). Harms (1995) cited in Lewandowski et al. (2000) also describes a
prototype Compactroller developed in Germany which can reach a density of 300-350
kg m-2.
Grasses can also be harvested with field forage choppers and used directly without
any packaging in existing heating plants for wood fuels, which is not the case with big
bales. Disadvantages with cut and unbaled material include low bulk density and dust
spreading (Hadders and Olsson, 1996).
Pelletizing
Another product that can be obtained from grasses is pellets. Their advantage is that
higher energy efficiencies can be achieved in thermal conversion than with bales or chips.
Pellets are also more economic to transport because of their higher bulk density.
However, the process is very expensive and requires a lot of energy (Venendaal et al.,
1997).
Walsh (1998) describes the single-phase pelletizing line which is carried out using the
newly developed Biotruck 2000 from the Haimler company. This machine allows
mowing, chopping and pelletizing in one phase in the field. The material is firstly mowed
and chopped, it is then pre-dried by using the thermal energy of the engine, the material is
then compacted, pressed and pelleted without additional bonding agents. The end product
of the process is a corrugated pellet with a length of 30 to 100 mm. The individual pellet
density ranges from 850 to 1000 kg m- while the bulk density ranges from 300 to 500 kg
m-. The Biotruck has a capacity of 3-8 tones per hour.
For comparison of different densities of final products, we show the numbers reported
by Pedersen and Gylling (1999) for RCG material: Hesston bales 160 kg m-3, meal
fractions 132 kg m-3, cellulose chips 90 kg m-3and pellets 600 kg m-3.
53
The method of harvesting should be chosen carefully. When choosing the harvesting
technique, the farmer should consider the cost of the harvesting process but also the type
of harvested material which is required by the processors (i.e. chips, bales or pellets).
Transport
The biomass material (bales or chopped material) can transported from the farm to
the storage facilities or to the plant where it will be used by trailer, balespike or by tractor
with a lorry. For the transport of chopped grass, chip lorries are used. They are loaded
using a bucket attachment and unloaded by tipping (Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996;
Venendaal et al., 1997)
Drying and Storage
Perennial grasses are usually harvested in spring when the material is dry enough and
suitable for storage without pre-drying (Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996). However, if full
drying in the field is not possible, the grass will be wet and will require drying,
ventilating or other treatment before storage. When storing organic material with high
moisture content, microbial activity might occur. The most evident consequence of
microbial activity is the loss of dry matter, transformed by respiration into heat, water and
carbon dioxide (Kristensen, 1999a). It has been investigated that for storage over 6
months, a moisture content of less than 20% is required (Venendaal et al., 1997). Farmers
also know that when storing straw bales, achieving low moisture content (between 10 and
15%) is very important to avoid rot and fungal diseases developing in the straw. Not only
does it affect the quality of the straw and the subsequent potential usage, but also the heat
generated by the rot could lead to spontaneous combustion (Porter, 2003).
Drying
Chopped material and whole stems can be dried artificially or naturally in piles.
Artificial drying is necessary when the moisture content is above 25 % (Lewandowski,
2000). Experiments performed at Research Centre Bygholm have shown that if harvested
in the autumn, loosened and chopped miscanthus can be dried in a conventional platform
drier for grain (Jrgensen and Kristensen, 1996). We can assume that if drying of reed
canary grass and switchgrass was necessary, this drying system could be also effective.
However, artificial drying is a rather energy consuming process, and is thus expensive
(Kristensen, 1999). Therefore, we would recommend that farmer harvest the crop in the
spring.
When the moisture content of chopped material is below 25% (this moisture content
is usually obtained in spring harvest), natural drying during the storage by forming
naturally ventilated piles is sufficient (Lewandowski, 2000).
Drying bales is more difficult if the moisture content exceeds 20%. The storage time
will have to be limited to prevent moulding. Drying of compact bales is almost
impossible (Venendaal et al., 1997).
54
Storage
Storage may be done under roof, tarpaulin, plastic sheeting, or without cover. In
Sweden several farmers and scientists have tried to store baled straw and grass outside
without any cover. It appeared it can be quite difficult (Venendaal et al., 1997). Also
experiments carried out in the US about round bales of switchgrass have shown that when
stored outside, losses are rather high and can represent 5-13% of the original dry matter
(Sanderson et al., 1997). However, for large amount (1000 t) a technique used in
Denmark is to build densely picked piles out of uniformly sized bales. The pile of bales is
so big that damage of the bales in the top layer is accepted as a marginal loss. Also large
piles of chopped material can be left uncovered. This means the outer layers will be lost
due to absorption of moisture in 5-50 cm depth (Lewandowski et al., 2000). We assume
that organic farmers would not grow energy crops at a very large scale. Therefore the
method with large piles is probably not applicable for them. However, it might be of use
for co-operative of farmers.
In Finland experiments have taken place with storing material in covered piles.
Covered outdoor stacks are practical and low cost storage for baled material. Dry matter
losses with this technique are around 2% over a 12 month period (Venendaal et al.,
1997).
Storage under roof is the best option but requires the highest investment. However,
the farmer could use conventional storage straw facilities if they are available. Storage
under roof saves on labour for placing and controlling the sheeting. Otherwise,
maintaining the sheeting in good condition under windy weather can be difficult.
It has been shown by Jannasch et al. (2001a) that having biomass of uniform moisture
and quality was important for the pelletization process. Also a small increase in moisture
content means that drying technology must be used in the pellet mill. Therefore storing in
a barn is recommended if the farmer is thinking about sending the grass to a pelletization
plant. (Venendaal et al., 1997).
It is probably better in order to preserve the quality of the biomass to store it under
cover, although it would add to the expenses for organic farmers. If the farmer has some
abandoned barn or some room in his storage facilities for straw, this would be the
favoured solution.
2.1.2.6. Other Considerations
2.1.2.6.1. Intercropping
An alternative way to provide nitrogen to a perennial energy grass stand in ecological
agriculture could be the use of a legume intercrop. Legumes would add nitrogen to the
soil, and would themselves contribute to add to the total biomass harvested. Difficulties
55
may arise however when trying to put the theory into practice. Introducing legumes in an
existing stand of energy grass might lead to having legume seedlings outcompeted for
light and moisture by the grass crop. On the other hand, after successful establishment
legumes may outcompete a grass like switchgrass early in the growing season, and may
end up shading and smothering the grass. (Hintz et al., 2002)
It seems like the best option in Denmark would be seeding just after the spring
harvest. The timing would be crucial. It would need to be adjusted with consideration to
the growth pattern of switchgrass in Denmark, and to the germination and establishment
speed of the legume. To avoid getting the grass stand smothered with a perennial legume
and loosing the stand, annual or biennial legumes are probably best suited for
intercropping with perennial energy grasses (Hintz et al., 2002). Possibilities would have
to be explored in Denmark for intercropping with hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), a biennial,
or common vetch (Vicia sativa), an annual. Vetches seem like good candidates because
of their prostrate growth habit and their tendency to wind their viny stem around the stem
of the grass. They are able to grow up, exploit available light in the canopy, and are
removed easily (Hannaway, 1998). Other annual species of vetch, medics or even lupine
used as forage could be used potentially. Some perennial legumes that would not stand
the winter conditions in Denmark could also be considered. Winter hardiness, drought
tolerance, salinity tolerance, soil pH tolerance and production potential are important
factors to consider when establishing legumes (Hannaway, 1998). When legumes are
chosen to be established in perennial energy grass crops, their effect on the quality of the
biomass will also have to be investigated. At the moment, no research has been done
about this topic.
An experiment made in the US by Hintz et al. (2002) has shown some of the
challenges associated with intercropping in perennial grass fields. Crimson clover, hairy
vetch and sweetclover have been tested as intercrops in switchgrass. Different weather
conditions in Iowa allowed for what was supposed to be a fall dormant planting.
Unfortunately, adequate moisture and above normal temperatures in November and
December caused the planting to germinate and initiate growth. When subfreezing
temperatures did occur, they experienced a high level of mortality. So in this study, the
legumes made up only a small portion of what was harvested, and probably did not
contribute much nitrogen. Results for yield, ash content and lignin content are
nevertheless summarized in table 7. Weather factors, timing of planting and timing of
harvest will have a great influence on the establishment of the legume and the quality of
the biomass harvested. More research is needed for organic producers to understand these
mechanisms better.
Table 7: Yield, Ash Content and Lignin Content for a Switchgrass/Legume Intercrop
Yield (lb ac-1)
Yield (t ha-1)
Ash (%)
Lignin (%)
Crimson Clover
2267
2.54
7.86
4.55
Hairy Vetch
2212
2.48
7.74
4.76
Sweetclover
2315
2.59
6.85
4.90
Control
2163
2.42
7.25
4.76
Source: Hintz et al (2002)
56
If it was found that some varieties of legumes do not harm and smother the perennial
grass stand; do not affect the quality of the biomass too much; can get well established;
and contribute significant quantities of nitrogen; intercropping could become the most
viable way to fertilize an energy crop stand in organic agriculture. A lot of trials still have
to be done before it happens, and one of the things to test will be the planting technique
for the legume. Research in Canada has shown that better alfalfa establishment occurred
in no-till seedbeds, probably due to the associated increase in soil water and soil
compaction at the time of seeding (Gauer et al., 1982; Allen and Entz, 1994). Use of notill seeders to seed the legume into the perennial grass stand after harvest in the spring
could be a very effective way to get good establishment in Denmark.
Strip cropping of legumes with the grasses could be another option to investigate for
organic farmers. New techniques could be developed where the legumes are mowed and
the residues spread over the grass crop to provide some nitrogen.
2.1.2.6.2. Mixtures
Another way to avoid introducing new monocultures in our ecological agriculture
systems could be the development of mixture of high yielding grasses for energy
production. Some native species to Denmark could be included, with potential to increase
the quality of the stand for biodiversity at the microbial level, as well as wildlife
biodiversity. Also, different grasses with different affinities for moisture and nutrients
could allow organic farmers to plant biomass stands on marginal land with unequal
moisture levels, and varying degrees of rockiness, fertility, clay content, etc. Grass and
prairie ecologists could help biomass researchers to create optimal mixtures for various
climatic and soil conditions (Samson and Omielan, 1998).
In Canada, two other native grasses have been identified that could be useful in
Denmark as promising biomass feedstock. Prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) has a
more northern distribution than switchgrass and is shown in Figure 10. More tolerance to
chilling would allow more
early development of the grass
Figure 10: native range of 3 promising species for
in the spring (Samson and
biomass production
Omielan, 1998). Nitrogen
fertilization of prairie cordgrass
stands in Nova Scotia gave
yields of 7.7 t ha-1 (Nicholson
and Langille, 1965), and plot
trials in England gave yields of
8 to 23 t ha-1 (Long et al.,
1990). Prairie Sandreed
source: Samson and Omielan, 1998.
(Calamovilfa longifolia) is
another species that performed
well in trials in northern US
(Samson et al., 1993).
57
2.1.3. Yields of Crop in Biomass

Miscanthus
The yield from the first seasons growth, 1-2 t ha-1, is not worth harvesting. The stems
do not need to be cut, and can be left in the field until the following season. From the
second year onwards the crop is harvested annually (Nixon and Bullard, 2001).
The optimal yields for miscanthus in northern regions are obtained after the fourth or
the fifth year. It is because in northern regions, miscanthus tends to mature more slowly
than in southern areas, where the optimal yields are often achieved in the second year
(Clifton-Brown et al., 2001). In Denmark, increases in yields are still observable in
miscanthus after the fourth or fifth year, but at a declining rate. The stand is expected to
remain productive for 15 years of more, without any need for renewed establishment
(Christian, 1999a).
Field trials with different miscanthus genotypes by Clifton-Brown et al. (2001)
showed that the differences in yield and quality between the genotypes can be explained
by their distinctive physiological rhythms and morphologies.
In southern Europe, where sub-zero temperatures are rare, late-flowering and latesenescing genotypes like M. x giganteus enjoy an extended growing season compared to
the Danish conditions. Plants can grow taller higher yields are obtained (Lewandowski et
al., 2003). In the south, the early senescing genotype M.sinensis is disadvantaged because
it flowers and senesces too early and can not reach such a high yield.
In comparison with southern regions of Europe, the senescence in northern countries
is delayed due to the lower levels of solar radiations. Earlier-senescing genotypes are
better adapted to the length of the growing season in Northern Europe than the latesenescing genotypes. It takes the plants more time than it would in the south, but they
reach maturity in time. In addition to overwintering problems, for later-senescing
genotypes, yield is also lowered by high losses. The upper parts of the stems are still
green at the first frost and can be easily broken off (Jrgensen, 1997).
Due to these facts, in cooler regions such as Denmark, M.sinensis can yields similarly
to M. x giganteus (Clifton-Brown et al., 2001). Yield will also varies according to site
(climate, soil type), date and method of harvest (Jorgensen, 1996). Yields in more
northern parts of Europe (latitude above 50N) are more typically around 15 t ha-1 year-1
according to Scurlock (1999). In Denmark maximal yields in experimental fields were
between 7 and 14 odt ha-1 with spring harvest. In commercial conditions in Denmark 7-8
odt ha-1 on sandy soils and 8-9 odt ha-1 on clay soils are reported (Jorgensen 1996).
Harvest in autumn or early winter will yield almost double compared to spring harvest,
but spring harvest is preferred.
58
Reed Canary Grass

Since RCG develops slowly, the stand is rather thin and gives a low yield in the first
year. From the second year up to at least 8 years, RCG has been proven to be sustainable
and high yielding (Landstrm, 1996). The first optimum yield is obtainable after 2-3
years (Anonym, 1998), which is an advantage compared to miscanthus or switchgrass.
The yields in the field trials obtained from the autumn harvest were 8-12 t DM ha-1.
Spring harvest has proven to be most feasible and yields of 6-8 t DM ha-1 are expected
when harvested under commercial conditions (Venendaal et al., 1997). There are several
factors affecting the yield of RCG: soil type, sowing time and genotype being the major
ones.
RCG has been evaluated as bioenergy crop at a number of sites in Sweden for more
than 10 years. The variety Palaton was planted in field trials at 10 locations and the
results showed that there are considerable differences in the yield between different soils.
Yields were much higher on soils with less than 15% of clay. On the clay soils the yields
were lower partly due to the lack of plant available soil water. The highest yields were
obtained on humus rich soils. When harvested in autumn the yield averaged 9 t DM ha-1.
In the following spring on average 7.5 t DM ha-1 were harvested, with a dry matter
content of 85%. The difference between autumn and spring yield is mostly due to loss of
leaves (Landstrm, 1999). The results from Finland also show that the best growth is
obtained on organic soils where experimental yields of 8-14 DM ha-1 have been recorded,
while they were only 5-8 DM ha-1 on mineral soils (Venendaal et al., 1997). It is however
unlikely that organic farmer will use best soils to grow energy crops. The production is
rather expected to be on marginal soils, so the lower yields can be assumed.
Also the sowing time has an effect on yields, mainly in the first years after
establishment. Higher yields were obtained with sowing in May to June instead of
September. (Lewandowski et al., 2003)
As Jrgensen and Mortensen (2000) reported there are great differences in dry matter
yield between genotypes. Breeding of new varieties could bring increases in the yields.
Switchgrass
Switchgrass has performed well in trials in Quebec, Ontario and England. This leads
to believe that it could also perform satisfyingly well in Denmark. Christian and Richie
(2001) obtained in their trials in England with variety CIR yields above 10 t dm ha-1yr-1
after the 4th year, and above 12 t dm ha-1yr-1 after the 6th year. Trials conducted in Quebec
have shown that fall harvest of switchgrass yielded 10.9 t dm ha-1yr-1 for variety CIR.
The cultivar Pathfinder, which is earlier maturing, yielded 9.6 t dm ha-1yr-1 (Girouard,
1994). In other trials, Girouard et al. (1999) obtained yields ranging from 9.7 to 13.7 t dm
ha-1yr-1 with an average of 11.6 t dm ha-1yr-1 for variety CIR on a site qualified as less
fertile. They obtained yields from 7.9 (2nd year) to 13.5 t dm ha-1yr-1with an average of 11
t dm ha-1yr-1 on a more fertile site. Leaving the crop overwinter in the field reduces yields
from 25-30%, so it can be calculated that spring yields would range from 6.4 to 10.4 t dm
ha-1yr-1in Quebec.
59
Denmark is situated between parallel 54N and 58N. In natural habitats, the
distribution of switchgrass stops at parallel 55N. This is probably due to cold winter
temperatures, and lack of warmth for growth in the summer. In Denmark, cold
temperatures are not a problem since winter temperatures are milder than in NorthAmerica. Cited results from Quebec have been obtained at latitude 45N. However,
growing season in Denmark is longer and sunlight exposure also longer during the
summer months. It is hard to predict what the yields would be in Denmark. Cited trials in
England, which were situated at 51 48 N, report yields of 12 t ha-1yr-1. For Denmark,
we would make a conservative estimate of 6-9 t ha-1 for spring harvest of switchgrass.
When comparing the yields of the three species it is important not to look only at the
yield level but also consider when this maximum yield is reached. There was an
interesting study in Rothamsted evaluating productivity of different grass species during
the years 1993-1998. The results are presented in table 8 and figure 11. The study
showed that productivity of reed canary grass was approximately four times greater at the
first harvest, and two times greater at the second harvest than miscanthus or switchgrass.
However in the following years the other two species overyielded RCG (Christian et al.,
1999a). When choosing the species, the farmer should consider not only the maximum
yield but also the length of period planned for energy crop production. For a farmer who
is planning to grow an energy grass stand only for a short period, maybe RCG or a
mixture of species (RCG and Switchgrass for example) could be most suitable.
Table 8: The Yield of Crops Between 1993 and 1998 (t dm ha -1yr-1)
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Total
Miscanthus 1,53
7,30
11,84 13,73 14,34 15,46 64,26
Switchgrass 1,55
6,18
8,59
10,56 15,12 10,74 52,75
RCG
6,42
12,47
8,65
7,76
6,59
6,90
48,80
Source: Christian et al., 1999a
Figure 11: The Yield of Crops Between 1993 and 1998 (t dm ha-1yr-1)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1993
1994
Miscanthus
1995
1996
1997
Switchgrass
Source: Christian et al., 1999a
60
1998
RCG
SUMMARY
Site Preparation
o extensive tillage to reduce weed pressure
o prior weed reduction in the years before crop establishment
o ploughing, harrowing, cultivating, burning of weeds before planting
Crop Establishment
o can be performed with conventional machinery
o miscanthus: planting rhizomes with potato planter, manure spreader or
special machine Bespoke planter
o reed canary grass and switchgrass: seeding with the same machinery as for
other grasses
o soil packing is recommended before and after planting
Fertilization Demands
o significantly reduced compared to annual crops
o fertilizing will depend on soil fertility and farm resources (Some authors
recommend 60 kg N ha-1, others report no yield response to fertilizers)
Weeds
o problems in the year of establishment - mechanical weeding necessary
o from the 2nd year on - no problems
Pests and Diseases
o no serious problems, although local problems have been reported
Harvest
o can be performed either in autumn, winter or spring but delayed harvest
for all tree grasses is recommended due to several advantages
o conventional techniques and machines can be used but some have to be
adapted for miscanthus crop.
Yields
o Perennial grasses have a potential to be productive for more than 10 years
and after the second year they are harvested annually.
o First optimum yield is reached for:
miscanthus - after 4th or 5th year
reed canary grass - after 2nd or 3 th year
switchgrass - after 4th or 5th year
o Yields of perennial grasses vary according to the site, date
(autumn/spring) and method of the harvest.
o Mean yields in the spring harvest reach:
miscanthus 7-9 dm ha-1 yr-1
reed canary grass 6-8 dm ha-1 yr-1
switchgrass 6-9 dm ha-1 yr-1
61
2.2. Environmental Impacts From Growing Perennial Grasses

Growing perennial grasses for energy will have several impacts on the farm and on
the surrounding environment. Ecologically and environmentally, most of them will be
beneficial. Soil will be greatly influenced by the perennial crops, mainly the soil carbon
levels. Biodiversity will also be influenced by the change in the landscape and the
creation of a new type of habitat. Water quality and emissions in the atmosphere will also
be different if row crop or cereal fields are converted to perennial energy grasses
production. These impacts of the new perennial crops on the environment will be
explored in this sub-section.
2.2.1. Impacts on Soil

2.2.1.1. Soil Organic Matter
The major impact on the soil from growing perennial grasses will be at the soil
carbon level. Carbon storage will increase as well as the organic matter content in the soil
(Sladden et al., 1991). It is widely recognised that loss of soil organic matter has multiple
effects on several aspects of soil quality. Soil water holding capacity, soil density and
aeration, nutrient availability and nutrient conservation are among the crucial properties
of soil that are controlled, at least in part, by organic matter. Effects of reduced organic
matter include reduced friability of the soil (related to higher bulk density), and greater
susceptibility to mechanical damage. (McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998; Bullard and
Metcalfe, 2001) Plant roots will have a major impact on organic matter accumulation in
the soil.
The 3 species of perennial grasses studied have very extensive root systems that go
very deep in the soil. Reports from Rothamsted in England show that switchgrass had a
root rhizome mass of 7.68 t ha-1 after 2 seasons. Miscanthus had 8.89 t ha-1 after 2
seasons and 12.78 after 7 years. Finally reed canary grass contributed 11.93 t ha-1 of root
biomass after 5 seasons. The rate of annual root biomass acquisition for switchgrass was
1t ha-1, and it would be an order of magnitude higher for miscanthus (Christian et al.,
1999b).
Ma et al. (2001) report that the flow of C from photosynthesizing tissue of the plant
to the roots combined with litterfall onto the soil are key processes in soil C
sequestration. They identified which pools of C switchgrass was contributing to. Their
results indicate that the largest stored pools of C after growing switchgrass were in Soil
C > Root C > Shoot C . They report that switchgrass has a root C to shoot C ratio of
about 2.2. Root biomass was 72% of the total biomass. This means most of the
photosynthetically fixed C is directed to the roots, where it remains in the soil,
unharvested.
Soil type will also influence the carbon sequestration. Ma et al. (2001) also report that
C storage appeared to be higher in clay soils, probably because of larger amounts of root-
62
released biomass incorporated in microbial biomass and remaining in the soil. This
organic carbon is protected by clay minerals and cation exchange sites. Clay soils had
lower turnover of root-released materials than sandy soils.
Experiments done in Quebec have shown that soil fertility influences the
physiological development of switchgrass and its carbon allocations (Zan et al., 2001).
On a more fertile site, they noticed that the above ground C of switchgrass was allocated
at 10% in the litter and 90% in the shoots. At a poorer site, C was at 17% in the litter, so
the plant had invested more carbon in leaf formation. In a spring harvest system, the litter
remains on the ground and is not harvested, which means it will contribute to the soil
organic matter. Some of the other observations from this research group relate to root C
storage. The below-ground storage of C was significantly different between the rich and
poor sites. At the poorer site, a little less than 4000 kg C were stored in the roots, which is
about 1000kg more than what had been stored at the richer site. When nutrients are not so
available, plants generate the roots required to access them. Other researchers have
shown that fertilization with N would not affect the concentration of carbon in the roots
(Ma et al. 2000). The only differences in C storage between treatments were due to total
root biomass yields.
Looking at this data about how fertility and N availability influence litter formation
and root formation by switchgrass, one can see that the crop is likely to contribute more
carbon to the soil if it is not fertilized. Hence for organic farming, where fertilization is
unlikely, one can assume that the contribution of the crop to soil organic matter levels
would be significant. This is an argument in favour of incorporation of perennial grasses
in organic rotations because achieving higher levels of organic matter in the soil is highly
desirable for organic farmers (Lampkin, 1990).
When compared to other crops, switchgrass increased soil C levels by 3t ha-1yr-1
above the soil C contribution of corn for 4 years. Willow contributed 9 t ha-1yr-1 above
the corn contribution. The higher contribution of the willow is due to the greater amount
of leaf-litter being returned to the soil every year in a willow crop. (Zan et al., 2001)
Also, perennial grasses have been shown to undergo complete root turnover over 4 years
(Dahlman and Kucera, 1965), while short rotation croppice trees like willow have a 1
year turnover for their fine roots (Dewar and Cannell, 1992). The more immediate effect
observed on soil carbon is related to incorporation of the litter, while root turnover effects
are slower for perennial grasses. In the study by Zan et al. (2001), switchgrass was
harvested in the fall. Figures could be higher if the harvest had been done in the spring
because a larger quantity of leaves from the grass would have had the time to fall down
on the soil. (Girouard et al., 1999)
It must also be recognised that a perennial grass cropping system will lead the soil to
reach a new equilibrium in C levels. Increases will not last forever: at some point,
additions of C are offset by respiration of an increased soil microbial biomass. Literature
reviewed by Zan et al. (2001) suggests that the net C storage may last for less than a
decade. Research done in the US Midwest has shown that rhizosphere deposition and fine
root turnover may add up to 3t ha-1yr-1. This while the soil C pool in the microorganisms
63
and invertebrates may total over 4t ha-1yr-1 under switchgrass. However, a number
commonly cited for contribution of switchgrass to soil carbon is 1.1 t ha-1yr-1
(McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998). This is after respiration and other losses have been
accounted for. For miscanthus, In fact the exact number will depend on the state of the
soil before the grass stand is established.
The benefits of this increased microbial activity and added organic matter in the soil
include improved soil structure, porosity change which leads to improved infiltration and
water holding capacity, improved nutrient conservation and availability, and decreased
soil erosion. Furthermore, organic matter is providing nutrients for plants and soil fauna
as it is decomposed by the microbial component of the soil. (McLaughlin and Walsh,
1998). Ultimately, because of increased organic matter, the availability for the vegetation
of both existing and added nutrients and water is improved. This likely leads to improved
soil productivity (Bransby et al., 1998).
Soil carbon gains and associated benefits can be extremely interesting for organic
farmers. However a study by Bransby et al. (1998) demonstrated that soil organic matter
gains from switchgrass occur only if the perennial grass is following a row or cereal crop.
If it is planted to replace a pasture, no net gains in carbon are achieved because the
grazing animals retain a relatively small proportion of the nutrients consumed. This
means that a large proportion of the biomass eaten is actually returned to the soil through
faeces in a pasture system, and this results in organic matter buildup in the soil. In a
perennial energy grass system on the contrary, above ground biomass is removed yearly.
In Denmark, for economic reasons, it is more likely that organic farmers would
convert pasture land into energy crop production than row crop land. The choice of
including energy grasses in the rotation will either be motivated by the added benefits,
like increasing land fertility through organic matter additions, or by government financial
support. It is important for the organic community to make the government recognize the
positive impacts of increases in SOM and the role of perennial grasses in carbon
sequestration. They will have to convince the government that they should translate this
service to the society into subsidy money for the farmers growing energy crops. Other
associated benefits of perennial grasses, such as reduced soil erosion, could also be used
as arguments to convince the government that it is a good idea to subsidise such a
production.
2.2.1.2. Soil Erosion
A second benefit to soils from the establishment of perennial grasses will be
reduction in soil erosion. In natural habitats, soil erosion is kept at low levels, but
agricultural practices, especially row cropping, can exacerbate soil losses due to erosion.
McLaughlin and Walsh (1998) conducted a literature review and report that erosion
losses associated with cultivation of corn in Iowa were about 70 times higher than for the
production of grasses on similar land. Also, during heavy rain events, soil losses from
row crops such as corn can exceed losses from grasslands by over 200 times.
64
Risks of erosion are highest where soils

are
exposed
to heavy or long lasting rainfall
Table 9: Typical Erosion Rates With
events. The good ground cover provided by
Selected Food and Energy Crops
perennial energy grasses is expected to
Crop
Erosion
-1 -1
reduce wind and water erosion (see table 9).
(t ha yr )
Energy grasses such as switchgrass,
Maize
21.8
miscanthus and reed canary grass achieve
Soybeans
40.9
complete ground cover faster than short
Energy Grasses
0.2
rotation croppice crops do, benefits are
Short Rotation Croppice
2.0
therefore expected to be even higher
Source: Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001
(Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001). McLaughlin
and Walsh (1998) report reductions from 11t ha-1yr-1 to 1t ha-1yr-1 on vulnerable sites
where permanent grass has been planted after annual cereals.
Annual erosion rates predicted for land with perennial energy crops are between 0.2
to 0.3 t ha-1yr-1. However, the first year of the plantation, the establishment year, is likely
to have erosion rates similar to corn: in the 10-20 t ha-1yr-1 range. This is if no soil
conservation measures are employed (Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001). In organic
agriculture, it would be really hard to apply any of the soil conservation measures
because of the heavy reliance on tillage and harrowing (several times) in order to control
weeds before seeding.
Soil erosion is associated with loss of organic matter and nutrients in the most
productive layer of the soil, which can be detrimental to soil productivity. It is also
associated with degradation of soil structure. Soil erosion is especially a problem in soils
containing a high proportion of silt and clay. It appears that energy grasses can be an
interesting tool for organic farmers to prevent soil erosion after the establishment year,
especially if it displaces a row or cereal crop. However, in order to protect the soil from
erosion and structural decline associated with tillage and harrowing during the
establishment year, it seems that organic production of energy crops might be less
favourable than conservation tillage systems and no-till systems with limited uses of
herbicides. Arguments can be made, however, about the impact of herbicides on other
components of the soil, namely soil microorganisms.
2.2.2. Impacts on Biodiversity

2.2.2.1 Soil Microbial Biodiversity
If we look at the field again, but this time at the microscopic scale, another
environmental effect of growing perennial rhizomatous grasses can be observed. The
increases in soil carbon levels that we have talked about will represent a net increase in
the potential energy and food sources for the soil micro-fauna to sustain itself. We have
mentioned that soil micro-organisms and invertebrates may total > 4 t ha-1yr-1 in
switchgrass fields. The extensive root system and associated rhizosphere will represent an
65
important interface where a multitude of species of micro-organisms can thrive. There

has been no attempt to characterize the microbial fauna in perennial energy grasses
compared to other land use, and it would be extraordinarily complicated and expensive to
do so. Furthermore, the biodiversity at the microbial level will vary across sites, climates,
and regions.
There is no concrete data available to demonstrate that the microbial diversity would
increase, but common sense and good understanding of soil microbial population
dynamics lead the belief that having a grass bioenergy stand for 10 years or so would
replenish soil organic matter, and probably allow several microbial communities to
establish. Those communities would perform many of the essential tasks in nutrient
cycling and would likely be solubilizing nutrients from the soil mineral fraction to make
them available for plant growth. These communities are likely to remain in the enriched
soil after the grass stand is replaced, and benefit the following (more profitable) crops.
There is also evidence that switchgrass has a mycorrhizal fungal associate in native
habitats (Clark et al., 1999; Girouard et al., 1999). Research should be done to discover if
this species of mycorrhizae or similar ones that could also establish symbiotic
relationships with switchgrass or other perennial energy grasses are present in Danish
soils. If they are not, the option of introducing mycorrhizal associates at seeding could be
looked at by organic farmers who want to improve their yields naturally and maximize
use of phosphorus in their soils.
In natural habitats, switchgrass is also thought to favour associative nitrogen fixing
bacteria that can apparently help the crop to gain some nitrogen, and reduce need for
fertilization. (Tjepkema, 1995). Organic farmers interested by switchgrass in Denmark
should further investigate the possibilities of stimulating those bacteria or similar ones in
the Danish conditions. Again, research could be done to see if such interactions could
occur with miscanthus or reed canary grass.
2.2.2.2 Wildlife
If we step out of the farm level and look over the landscape, well see that there is
potential for perennial energy grasses to benefit wildlife biodiversity. The impact on
biodiversity will greatly depend on the previous use of the land on which energy crops
will be planted. While displacing forests and natural habitats with energy crop fields
would likely lead to reductions in biodiversity, there might be positive impacts on
biodiversity if cereals, forage fields, pastures or row crops are replaced by an energy
grass plantation.
When looking at animal biodiversity, knowing if the crop is native or not becomes
important. It is expected for England that reed canary grass, a native species to Europe,
would not decrease biodiversity if it were to replace other types of grasslands, and would
increase it if it replaced arable cropping (Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001). We can assume
such predictions to be valid for Denmark as well, however, no field data is available at
66
the moment. It is much harder to determine what the reaction of wildlife would be to the
introduction of new species without experimental results.
Two studies, one at Rothamsted and another in Germany, compared miscanthus with
cereal crops (Nixon and Bullard, 2001). In these studies three times more earthworms and
spiders were found in the miscanthus crop. Miscanthus also supported a greater diversity
of spider species. One of the studies also found 5 more mammal species and 4 more bird
species in miscanthus compared to wheat. Moreover miscanthus is a nesting habitat, for
both ground nesting birds in the early spring (e.g. sky larks), and reed nesting birds (e.g.
reed warbler) later in the summer (Nixon and Bullard, 2001). Those studies were
conducted in Southern England and Germany which are relatively close to Denmark.
Impact of the non-native switchgrass on biodiversity in Europe has not been tested so
far. However, some research has been conducted in the US. A study in Pennsylvania has
shown that converting pastures and hayfields of cool season grasses to warm season
grasses had positive impacts on avian biodiversity. Through point counts, nest
monitoring, and vegetation sampling, it was established that warm-season grasses
supported a greater abundance and richness of birds including many declining species of
sparrows. Their reproductive success was also enhanced (Giuliano and Daves, 2002).
The same study has shown that some of the species dominant in the cool season grass
ecosystem had been disadvantaged, but findings show a greater evenness in the
distribution of individuals among species with warm season grasses. Authors suggest that
using warm season grasses on 20-30% of the fields of a given farm would maximize the
wildlife benefits. Those would primarily arise from the increased availability of
undisturbed nesting cover during the nesting season (Giuliano and Daves, 2002).
Grassland birds in biomass fields would not experience the low nest success associated
with hay fields because biomass fields are harvested once a year in the fall, winter or
early spring (Murray et al., 2003).
Land managers should not promote conversion of all fields to warm season grasses
because although biodiversity at the level (the field level) is increased with such a land
management option, habitat diversity at the level (across fields) would be decreased,
which would have negative impacts on biodiversity at a larger scale. Careful planning
needs to be considered to avoid creating monocultures of perennial grasses. These can be
imaginatively divided into appropriate areas offering landscape ambience as well as a
viable swath for harvesting. It is also possible to plant perennial grasses as areas around
the edges of fields to increase the buffer area between the hedge and the crop with all the
advantages offered by such biodiversity potential.
A recent research by Murray et al. (2003) presents similar results where conversion of
rowcrop fields to biomass production has benefited several species that are management
priorities in the US; this while species that thrive under the current land use situation
were somehow disadvantaged by the change in landscape configuration.
67
The same authors investigated the impact of strip harvest compared to full harvest of
the field or no-harvest. Strip harvest provided habitat both for species that prefer tall
vegetation, and for the ones who prefer short and sparse vegetation. They however
conclude that a mixture of total harvest and non-harvest over the landscape which could
be obtained through a rotational harvest regime would provide benefits for a broader
range of species than totally harvesting or strip harvesting all fields. (Murray et al., 2003)
Conversion of row crop to switchgrass or another perennial grass would have other
impacts that the two previous studies, focussing on breeding habitat availability, did not
concentrate on. There would be a shift in food sources, and a decrease in some of the
sources that specific birds or animals might depend on. Establishment of food plots (areas
of fields grown into rowcrops to provide food for wildlife) would be a feasible
management option to optimize benefits and wildlife protection (Murray et al., 2003).
Such an option is however difficult to justify for organic farmers because of the
management difficulties that it could create and the associated economic return. It will
only depend on governments priorities and will to protect wildlife, and on the consequent
programs put together to stimulate farmers to grow grasses for energy and wildlife.
Results reported from the US are not directly transferable to the Danish situation,
especially because the wild bird populations have probably been modified by the
centuries of human occupation of the land. Surveys identifying bird species living in
different agricultural environments and in native/non-native perennial energy grass fields
in Denmark are required for better assessment of the potential impacts of increased grassbased biomass production on wildlife.
2.2.3. Other Impacts

Other impacts of growing and using energy grasses are mainly related to water and
atmosphere. In this subsection, we will look at the impact perennial grasses would have
on water quality (mainly related to leaching) and on the atmosphere (including lower
emissions of CO2, sequestration of CO2, lower NOx emissions, and reduced emissions of
acid rain related compounds upon combustion)
2.2.3.1. Water Quality Impacts
Other impacts on non-living elements of the ecosystems are associated with increased
production of energy grasses. Research referred to by McLaughlin and Walsh (1998)
analysed regional impact of switchgrass on water quality. They used fertilization rate,
crop use, land quality and erosion models to make projections. They predicted improved
water quality for switchgrass fields compared to arable ones. Furthermore, switchgrass,
because of its C4 photosynthetic pathway, used water more efficiently, so they predicted
reduced evapotranspiration, and better groundwater conservation in switchgrass fields.
68
The role that crops like switchgrass can play on streambanks and wetland is also
mentioned by McLaughlin and Walsh (1998). Due to its growth characteristics, to the
density of the stems and roots, and to the tolerance of periodic flooding, switchgrass is a
very well suited crop to be planted for stabilization of those habitats.
A large part of the benefits of perennial grasses on water is related to nitrogen use and
uptake. However, a lot of the arguments made in favour of switchgrass or another crop
are based on common sense and inductions, rather than on scientific facts. Bransby et al.
(1998) report that there is relatively little information available on the ability of
switchgrass to accumulate N from the soil. They argue that most of the recovery data
available at the moment is about annual crops. There are several differences between
annuals and perennials which make the predictions rather difficult. For example, in
organic agriculture, manures are incorporated to the soil before an annual crop is planted.
If one wants to fertilize perennial grasses, manures or slurry will have to be top dressed,
which will increase the amount of N losses (mainly through volatilization, but also
through leaching and runoff). But then how much N is lost in annuals because the crop is
not developed at the time of fertilization? Perennials have an existing deep root system
that is not only capable of absorbing the applied N, but also capable of going deep down
into the soil, and recuperating N that would be unavailable to annual species. There is
also a controversial issue about the fact that the soil is not tilled every year in perennials.
Some would argue that a more compact soil (as a result of no tillage) could reduce water
infiltration and hence plant assimilation in some cases (Bransby et al., 1998). On the
other hand, increased organic matter associated with perennial grass systems is said to
increase infiltration and water holding capacity through structural and porosity changes
(McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998) This would suggest a better nutrient uptake by the plants
in other cases. Moreover, the vegetation cover that remains all year round with perennial
crops is likely to reduce runoff compared to annual crops and hence reduce nutrient
losses.
Unfortunately, little data is available to help us weigh those factors out (especially for
ecological agriculture) and determine without a doubt which will have the most
influence. Is N recovery improved or not in perennial rhizomatous grass systems?
Concerning switchgrass, only one paper has provided numbers used by Bransby et al.
(1998) to calculate N recovery percentages. They have determined N recovery in
switchgrass to be 65.5%, compared with 50% which is a generally accepted figure for
wheat and corn.
Miscanthus seems to be an even better candidate to recuperate nitrogen. A study by
Christian et al. (1997) about nitrate leaching in miscanthus and reported by Bullard and
Metcalfe (2001) has shown that in unfertilized clay soils, leaching had declined from 154
kg N ha-1yr-1 to only 3 kg N ha-1yr-1 within 3 years. Experiments at the Foulum Research
Centre by Jrgensen et al. (1999) showed that miscanthus was able to prevent leaching of
N, even when about twice the recommended amount of animal manure (top dressed
slurry) was applied on a sandy loam soil. Levels of nitrate in the groundwater were
maintained below regulation thresholds. This indicates that there is a potential for organic
farmers to use, and even to fertilize miscanthus in water-sensitive or protected areas. In
69
general a change of land use from a conventional agricultural crop rotation into perennial
energy crops would reduce the leaching of nitrate from agriculture, and would reduce
waste management problems for animal farms.
Our impression is that with their substantially more important root system, ground
cover throughout the year, associated increases in soil organic matter, reduced soil
disturbance, and reduced need for fertilization (as it was shown by Christian et al.,
1999b), perennial grasses grown for energy are very likely to have positive impacts on N
recovery and reduce pollution due to nitrate leaching. Many others support this
hypothesis (Samson, 1991a; Stjernquist, 1994; Ehrenshaft, 1998). Bullard and Metcalfe
(2001) used figures of 150 kg N ha-1yr-1for the establishment year and then 3 kg N ha-1
yr-1 for the following years in their scenario analysis. Mortensen et al. (1998) from
Denmark obtained similar results in an experiment with short rotation croppice. Due to
soil disturbance and lack of ground cover, leaching figures were between 130 and 142 Kg
N ha-1yr-1 in the establishment year.
2.2.3.2. CO2 Emissions
With increased water quality, one of the most commonly stated arguments for energy
grasses is their effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The greenhouse gas for which the
biggest change could occur is CO2. This is what we will look at in this sub-section.
There are two phenomenons at play. First we will talk about, carbon sequestration in the
roots and fixation of C in the soil organic matter. The most significant effect, however,
will come from the displacement of CO2 emitting fossil fuels with a more or less CO2
neutral energy source. This is the second phenomenon we will look at. Finally we will
look at why perennial grasses are also a much better source for ethanol feedstock than
corn.
Numbers from Bullard and Metcalfe (2001) are providing estimations based on
scenario analysis for the 3 grasses for English conditions in conventional production.
Table 10 shows that mitigated CO2 over 7 years would be considerable if energy grasses
replaced arable crops, but minimal if they replaced permanent grassland.
70
Table 10: CO2 Abatement Benefits From Growing Perennial Grasses in Place of
Annual Cropping and Permanent Grassland Over 7 Years (in t ha -1)
PRG in place of arable cropping
PRG in place of grassland
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
CO2
mitigated released
removed mitigated released
removed
by SOC
from
by SOC
from
from the
from the
SOC
SOC
atmosphere
atmosphere
Miscanthus
211
2.11
38
2.11
208.89
35.89
RCG
195
7.72
18
7.72
187.28
10.28
Switchgrass
182
1.82
0
1.82
180.18
(1.82)
Source: Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001
It must also be noted that relative to present land use for annual grain or summer
fallow (on set-aside), carbon storage in the above ground biomass during the summer
would increase with introduction of perennial grasses (Samson, 1991a).
Bransby et al. (1998) however insist that the relative impact of C sequestration will
be lower than that of replacement of fossil fuels. This is especially due to the fact that the
relative impact of displacing fossil fuels will increase year after year. It is continuous and
cumulative, whereas C sequestration happens
once (one time benefit). Table 11 shows the
Table 11: Relative CO2 Emissions per Unit
relative CO2 emissions per unit of energy for
of Energy for Various Energy Types.
various energy types. CO2 emissions from the
(In kg C GJ -1 energy)
production and combustion of 1 liter of gasoline
Oilsands
30.0
are about 2.5 kg CO2 L-1, and it is assumed that
Coal
24.7
ethanol derived from switchgrass or another
Petroleum
22.3
perennial grass would yield about 10% of the
Natural Gas
13.8
carbon associated with gasoline. This is due to
Ethanol from switchgrass (and
1.9
the energy inputs in growing, transporting and
other PRG)
transforming the biomass (Samson, 1991a).
Source: Samson, 1991a
Now we have shown the advantage of

biomass-ethanol over oil, but it is also necessary
to say that perennial grasses are a much more efficient way to produce ethanol than the
most commonly used crop: maize. The energy required to obtain equivalent amounts of
ethanol is 4.5 times higher for corn compared to switchgrass. The lower energy
requirements to produce and transform switchgrass result in about 20 times higher CO2
emissions savings per unit
of land area compared to
Table 12: Comparative Carbon Flow in Production
corn. Table 12 shows data
of Ethanol From Corn and Switchgrass (in kg C ha-1) comparing corn and
Corn
Switchgrass
switchgrass for ethanol
Production costs
3685
1477
production. This data is
Fuel replacement
3897
6125
from the US and the
Net combustion savings
212
4648
Soil carbon storage
2717
71 7365
Total carbon reductions
212
Source: McLaughlin and Walsh, 1998
ethanol yields in Denmark would probably be lower due to lower yields per hectare. The
table shows, however, that the potential to reduce CO2 with perennial grasses is much
higher than with corn.
To summarize, it can be said that perennial grasses have a low CO2 loading because
of their high energy output / input ratio, their capacity to lock up carbon into the soil and
into their above ground biomass, and finally because they allow displacement of
significant amounts of fossil fuel based energy. Their beneficial impact on the
greenhouse effect will also come from the reduction in emissions of other gases, namely
the nitrous oxides.
2.2.3.3. Nitrous Oxides
Emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from agricultural soils is related to global
climate change as NOx are greenhouse gases about 320 times as effective as CO2 to trap
heat at the surface of the globe (Jrgensen et al., 1997). Nitrogen fertilisation is the most
important cause leading to the release of those gases as NO3- gets reduced to NO2 and
N2O in anaerobic environments.
Assuming that perennial grasses need very little or no fertilization, it can be predicted
that emissions of NOx will be lower in those fields than in normal arable land that gets
fertilized with manures or green manures. If no fertilizer is applied, there will probably be
very little emissions of NO2 in the air (Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001). Moreover, these
crops are recognized for their increased growing season and ground cover, for a more
extensive root system and for efficient utilisation of soil mineral nitrogen. This suggests
that nitrogen is less likely to be available for denitrifying bacteria present in the soil.
Losses of N applied to NOx vary from 0-2% in conventional systems. The figures
very much depend on soils, fertilizers, climate and management practices. Reported
emissions for fertilized miscanthus (75 kg N ha-1) were around 1.09 kg N2O ha-1yr-1,
which is twice that of winter rye (Jrgensen et al., 1997). Other scientists, however,
report reduction in emissions when passing from arable crops to unfertilized perennial
energy grasses to be around 0.3 kg NOx ha-1yr-1. (Brjesson, 1999).
For the organic farmer, the situation will very much depend on the fertilization
practice. If top dressing of manures or slurry is performed, losses are likely to be high, as
mentioned earlier in the fertilization section.
2.2.3.3. Energy Grasses and Acid Rain
SO2 and NOx emissions are associated with the combustion of various types of fuels
and are involved in creation of acid rains. Acid rain is known to lead to increased nutrient
depletion in the soils (Bullard and Metcalfe, 2001). Combustion of biofuels have been
shown to release less acidifying gases than equivalent fossil fuel derived energy.
Acidification potential is calculated by adding the acidifying pollutants produced during
72
the combustion process. These acidifying gases are SO2 and NOx predominantly, but also
HCl and NH3 .
Cereal straw is known to have varying levels of sulphur and chloride. Those will
depend on soil conditions during crop growth and will also depend on the weathering of
the material. Perennial grass biomass is not differentiated from general straw in chemical
analysis. Numbers about the concentration of different elements in the biomass and in
coal are presented in table 13
Table 13: Elemental Composition of Perennial Rhizomatous Grasses, Cereal
Straw and Coal (% w/w)
Element
C
N
H
S
O
Cl
Coal
68.7
4.5
1.1
1.5
8.8
-
Cereal
straw
44.5
5.9
0.6
0.3
38
0.2
Miscanthus Switchgrass Reed canary

grass
48.3
48.7
47.3
6.2
5.9
6.0
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.1
42.6
40.7
40.3
0.4
0.07
0.07
Source: Christian and Richie, 1999.
No data is available concerning the combustion of perennial grasses as such, but it is

believed that emissions of acidifying gases will be reduced, maily due to the low sulphur
content of the biomass compared to coal as shown in the table above. The environmental
impact of replacing fossil fuel energy with biomass will be positive, but will depend on
the extent to which fossil fuels are displaced.
73
SUMMARY
To summarize the environmental impacts of perennial grasses, we will look, in a
point form, at the common goods and services provided by agro-ecosystems, and will
determine how perennial grasses will affect these.
Growing PRG will not have adverse impact on human health.
Disturbance of the soil is reduced, which has impacts on soil organic matter levels,
and improves the quality and fertility of the soil.
Soil erosion is reduced and controlled a lot better than in arable cropping
PRG allow for better nutrient use efficiency and are better integrated in nutrient
cycling loops than other crops. This is due to the fact that a good proportion of the
nutrients absorbed by the plant are returned to the soil during the winter (it is mainly
C that is harvested). Also, by sustaining larger amounts of soil microorganisms
(related to increases SOM), PRG will stimulate the cycling of nutrients and the
activity of the microbial populations in the soil.
Impact on biological control and abundance of refugia are likely to be positive with
establishment of new, perennial, stable habitats for insects and wildlife.
The use of local genetic resources could be enhanced with the development of
mixtures including native species
The grasses are not food for humans, but they will provide a food source for wildlife,
and are known to increase biodiversity in many parts of the world.
In terms of waste treatment, PRG open new possibilities to use sewage sludge and
other types of wastes, and to reintegrate such precious nutrients and micronutrients
into the agro-ecosystem.
Water regulation and supply can be beneficially impacted as NO3- leaching is reduced
under PRG systems, even when they are fertilized.
Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. Reductions are major for CO2 especially
due to the displacement of fossil fuel energy sources but also NOx emissions are
reduced with perennial grasses.
Acid rain gases emissions are reduced since burning biomass is cleaner than burning
coal and other fossil fuels.
74
Finally, PRG systems fulfill the very important function of providing raw material for
the energy industry. This raw material could also be used by other industries like the
paper and fibre industry, but this is beyond the scope of this report.
Overall, introduction of perennial grasses for energy production in the organic crop
rotation could have several positive impacts on the environment when compared to
present land and energy use patterns. The next section will look at how this biomass can
be useful at the farm scale, and for the society.
2.3. Processing, Conversion into Energy

There are several outlets for the biomass once it has been harvested. It is important to
look at the different possibilities because production of energy is the ultimate goal of the
whole process of producing rhizomatous grasses. It is also important to look at the
quantity of energy needed for the processing or transformation, as well as the quantity of
energy yielded or available for use or work. This allows for comparison between the
different procedures and options.
There are several ways to look at this question of comparison. One of them is to
consider the type of energy generated. The energy from the primary biomass can be
stored or accumulated in multiple ways. These different forms of energy will be able to
deliver energy through different types of work. They will have different uses. For
example, electricity generated from biomass is much more versatile than a raw bale of
miscanthus. The electricity can be used for lighting, electric appliances, movement or
heating. The bale on the contrary can only release its energy by being burnt, and this
energy will be heat. This recalls the concept of exergy: the more versatile the energy is,
the higher exergy it will have. It would be more pertinent to compare the different energy
yields on the basis of their exergy rather than in simple kJ. It would also be very pertinent
to compare alternatives on the basis of their emergy, which includes the embodied
energy, the energy used for generation of usable energy. Unfortunately, numbers are not
available for such comparisons. The concepts remain useful for the reader because it must
not be forgotten that more kJ will be recovered from a ton of reed canary grass if it is
burnt rather than transformed into ethanol, but the heat generated might not be the desired
end use.
Society is very unaware now that a high grade energy, oil, is massively used to
generate electricity, thus increasing the emergy rating of this oil-generated electricity
compared to wind-generated electricity or biomass-generated electricity. The most
ironic is that many people then use this extremely costly electricity to generate heat in
their houses Convenient we can say, but incredibly wasteful
In order to achieve energy self sufficiency and sustainability, the Danish society will
have to revise its patterns of energy use. They will have to use the appropriate type of
energy to perform the associated task. This could mean biomass for heating, oil for
transport, wind for electricity generation, and electricity for lighting and electronics. In
75
order to further reduce CO2 emissions by fossil fuels and to increase the quantity of
available electricity (it is likely that wind could not supply enough electricity for the
Danish society even if energy use was rationed and appropriate) it is pertinent to look at
how biomass can be used to generate these higher grade energies as well. So this section
has been structured starting with the lower grade energies (low exergy ones), and
successively looking at higher and higher exergy generation.
Another important factor is the distance or the scale. When energy sources are
transported a long way before the end point use, it increases their embodied energy, their
emergy. It then becomes less and less profitable or efficient to use it. Restructuring the
energy distribution and generation net in Denmark will be crucial to achieve energy selfsufficiency. Production and transformation of energy close to the end-use point is highly
desirable. Hence the report will present opportunities to use perennial grass based energy
at the farm scale first, and then off-farm (always keeping in mind that the closer, the
better). Heating directly from biomass bales, pelletization of the grass biomass, will be
successively looked at. The off-farm uses that will be explored will be gasification,
ethanol production and direct generation of electricity. But before all that, we shall look
at the biomass characteristics of reed canary grass, switchgrass and miscanthus.
2.3.1. Biomass Characteristic

The characteristics of the biomass will influence the quality of the combustion and
processing. The main biomass characteristics are water, minerals and ash content, as well
as fusion temperature of the ashes. Fusion of the ashes causes problems in burners, stoves
and generators and is referred to as clinkers (Burvall, 1997; Lewandowski and Kicherer,
1997).
The formation of clinker is mainly influenced by potassium (K), chlorine (Cl) and
silicon (Si), these components also contribute to corrosion of the system (Jrgensen &
Mortensen 2000). It is also well recognized that nitrogen is causing corrosion in the
burners. Another problem with nitrogen is that NOx emissions from fuel can be
significant under certain circumstances of combustion (Burvall, 1997). Because of these
reasons, it is desirable to minimize the content of such components.
There are substantial differences in the fuel quality between the biomass of perennial
grasses harvested in autumn and in spring. There is a significant decrease of the water
content as well as the concentration of undesirable components in biomass during the
winter. The changes in chemical composition are caused by translocation of nutrients to
the rhizomes and by leaching of nutrients from the standing crop. Leaching is most
significant for K and Cl because they are the most soluble ions in the plant (Burvall,
1997; Jrgensen, 1997; Lewandowski and Kicherer, 1997). Nitrogen does not leach as
much as K and Cl (because N is fixed in non-soluble organic substances) its content in
biomass is reduced mainly by translocation (Jrgensen, 1997).
76
Also losses of leaves during the winter contribute to improvement of the quality
(Burvall, 1997; Jrgensen, 1997). As the ash concentration is higher in the leaves; the
losses reduce the mean concentration of ash in the crop (Jrgensen, 1997). In a study
conducted by Pakhala et al. (1999), the ash content of reed canary grass stems ranged
from 2.6 5.1% of the stem dry matter compared to 7.6 16.1% of the dry matter in leaf
blades.
Because of translocation, leaching, and loss of leaves, delayed harvest appears to be
the most important management tool to improve biomass quality. This adds up to the
reasons why late harvest is desirable for Denmarks potential organic producers of grass
biomass.
If organic producers systematically harvested in late winter or spring, and avoided N
fertilization of their grass biomass, there could be potential for recognition by power
plants, and people, that organic biomass is cleaner than conventional. Premium prices are
a possibility. This kind of market differentiation is very hypothetical and optimistic, but it
would make it more possible for organic farmers to use their valuable land for biomass
production. Obviously, this kind of statement would also need to be confirmed by
research, and there would need to be instructions from the organic certification agency
about ways to fertilize, produce and harvest biomass in organic production. The
likelihood of the development of such a scenario is left to the readers own judgment, but
it had to be mentioned.
The concentration of minerals in biomass differs among different species. Christian
and Richie (2001) did a study in England comparing mineral composition of miscanthus ,
switchgrass and reed canary grass. They harvested the biomass during the winter (on
January 10th and 11th) and subsequently analyzed it. Their results are summarized in table
14
Table 14: Mineral Concentration of Biomass at Harvest in England
Species
Miscanthus
M.Giganteus
Switchgrass
Cave in Rock
Reed Canary Grass
Treatment
N0 (1)
N60
N120
N0
N60
N0
N
(%)
0.41
0.5
0.56
0.479
0.583
0.61
P
(ppm)
355.04
355.43
380.25
538
529
524
K
(ppm)
4679
4701
5631
2121
2280
2711
Na
(ppm)
61.60
67.62
68.52
75
115
103
S (ppm)
662.45
616.51
585.74
720
801
1206
Source: Christian and Richie, 2001

(1)
NO, N60 and N120 refer to the amount of N (in kg) applied to the crop
The experiment has shown that switchgrass compared to miscanthus, had higher N,
Na and S concentrations, while K concentrations were lower. For reed canary grass,
concentration of N was very similar to switchgrass, P and K were similar, and S was
higher than in both the other species. They also investigated the effect of nitrogen
fertilization on the mineral content. For switchgrass variety Cave-in-rock, fertilization
with 60 kg N increased concentration of N, Na, S and K in the biomass. There is also
77
positive correlation between concentration of some nutrients (mainly N and K) of the

miscanthus biomass and increasing the N fertilizer level.
These three species also differ in content of silicon (Si), which is a main component
of the ashes. In perennial grasses the major mechanism of silica entry to the plant is
through the uptake of silicic acid in water. The main difference in silica contents between
perennial grass species is often related to the photosynthetic mechanism of the grass, and
to the amount of water being transpired by the plant. Warm season (C4) grasses as
miscanthus and switchgrass, on average, use half as much water as C3 grasses per tonne
of biomass produced (Black, 1971 cited by Samson and Mehdi, 1998). The decreased
water usage reduces the uptake of silicic acid and therefore decreases the ash content of
the C4 plant.
Consequently, these three species differ in ash content. In table 15, it is shown that
reed canary grass, a C3 species, has much higher content of ash compared to the other two
species. However it is still half of the ash content of wheat straw. Therefore the
composition of perennial grasses makes them more favorable for combustion.
Table 15. Ash Content of Wheat Straw and Overwintered Perennial Grasses in %
Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum)
Miscanthus (Miscanthus sinensis)
Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea)
Wheat straw
C4 perennial
C4 perennial
C3 perennial
C3 annual
1.7
2.0
6.3
11.1
Source: Samson and Mehdi, 1998
The main problem of miscanthus biomass with regard to combustion is its relatively
low ash melting point (as low as 600 C) which can be problematic in some boiler
systems. Reed canary grass and switchgrass have melting points of 1400C and 1016C
respectively. This trait in miscanthus may be due to relatively high potassium and silica
content (McLaughlin et al., 1996; Lewandowski and Kicherer, 1997; Scurlock, 1999). It
also probably depends on the relative proportions of these elements. At present, breeding
efforts aim at reducing the silica content of miscanthus (Lewandowski et al., 2003). On
the other hand, silica is also important in several physiological functions, including
mechanical strength, phosphorus uptake and disease and pest resistance which are
desirable for organic farming (Samson and Mehdi, 1998).
Soil conditions have been reported to influence biomass quality, especially ash
content. Biomass ash contents are correlated with high silt and clay content of the soil
There are also differences in combustion quality between genotypes within species.
Experiments done by Jrgensen (1997) proved that for spring harvest, concentration of K
and Cl in M.sinensis genotypes are much lower than in M.giganteus. It is partly caused by
the fact that M.sinensis compared to M.giganteus can senesce in northern regions, and
thus translocate nutrients before winter comes. M. sinensis genotypes are also
78
characterized by thinner stems, which have more surface area, where leaching of Cl and
K can occur (Lewandowski and Kicherer, 1997). The same pattern, can be seen also in
switchgrass. Sladden et al. (1991) have shown that later harvest of switchgrass will
increase fiber content, and decrease N contents for varieties that have time to complete
their growth cycle during the growth period. They also cite research which has shown
that later harvested biomass of switchgrass had lower ash and K content. A clear decrease
of ash content with progressed maturity was observed as well in other trials.
The quality and composition of the biomass will have a major impact on what type of
processing the biomass is best suited for. The future interest of processors to develop
technologies and infrastructures, and to start using PRG as a new feedstock will depend
on research done to improve genotypes and ash contents of PRG. It will also depend on
farmers choices in terms of fertilization of their crop, timing of harvest, and species. The
following sub-sections will explore various options to use PRG at different scales for
energy generation.
2.3.2. On-Farm
2.3.2.1 Heating With Grasses
Because of the energy crisis in the 1970s, and following subsidies from the
government, on-farm straw burning became a very interesting alternative for farmers
(Nikolaisen, 1998). In the mid 1980s it was estimated that approximately 14000 straw
burning units were installed all over Denmark. In 1997 the estimates said that the number
had decreased to 10000 units. The decrease in the numbers is due to the fact that the first
small units have been replaced, by larger and more effective units (Energistyrelsen,
2001). In the 1970s the utilization rate of the energy stored in the straw was about 3040%. The percentage has increased to approx 70% in 1995, and later to more than 80% in
1999 (Sktt and Hansen, 2000). Utilization rate refers to the percentages of the initial
energy contained in the biomass, which is recovered through processing.
When talking about furnaces used to burn bales of straw or grasses to produce heat,
we must distinguish between two types: manually fed and automatically fed. The basic
concept of both types is the same: the fire is heating up water in a kettle, and through a
heat exchanger, it produces hot domestic water, and hot water for heating.
The manually fed system is the oldest and simplest type. The straw bale is simply
placed in the combustion chamber, and burnt as it is. Normally a tractor equipped with a
front loader is used to put in new bales of straw and for removal of ashes (Nikolaisen,
1998). Figure 11 and 12 show the basic concept respectively a picture of a manually fed
furnace.
79
Figure 11: System of a Manually

Fed Straw Furnace
Figure 12: Picture of a Manually Fed Straw

Furnace
Source: Nikolaisen (1998)
Source: Sktt and Hansen (2000)
The automatically fed furnaces are equipped with a straw lane a conveyer belt of
10-20 m, which drags the straw bales to the furnace. Before the straw goes into the
combustion chamber, the bales are automatically cut up, by a cutting mechanism, at the
end of the straw lane. The straw is transported from the cutter to the furnace, either by air
pressure or by an auger. The air pressure system is the most flexible one concerning the
placement of the cutter in relation to the furnace. It gives better protection against back
burning from the furnace to the straw lane. Back burning refers to the risk of having
the fire go out of control and move back through the feeding system. However, the air
pressure system requires more energy than the auger one (Nikolaisen, 1998).
Figure 13 and 14 show a drawing and a picture of an automatically fed furnace.
Figure 13: The Principle of an Automatically Fed
Furnace Including the Straw Lane and the Cutter
Figure 14: Picture of an

Automatically Fed
Furnace
Source: Nikolaisen et al. (1998)
Source: Nikolaisen et al.(1998)
80
Compared to the manually fed systems, the automatically fed systems have the
advantage of being less labour intensive. They automatically take in the straw as it is
needed, and the continuous feeding gives a better combustion, leading to lower emissions
(Nikolaisen, 1998).
The improvement in the efficiency mentioned earlier is mainly due to the technical
development concerning the airflow regulation in the combustion chamber. Today,
manually fed, as well as automatically fed furnaces, have automatically controlled fans to
regulate the airflow. The controller is measuring the temperature and the oxygen (O2)
concentration of the smoke, and regulates the fans to optimise the combustion. The
automatically fed systems also offer the opportunity to automatically regulate the supply
of fuel to the combustion chamber, and further optimise the combustion (Nikolaisen,
1998).
The following figures from Sktt and Hansen (2000) show the development in
efficiency (figure 15) and the carbon monoxide (CO) emissions (figure 16), from
automatic fed and manually fed furnaces from the early 1980s to 1998.
Figure 15: Efficiency of Straw Furnaces
Figure 16: CO Emission
As shown on figure 15 manually and automatically fed furnaces are almost equally
effective in terms of energy efficiency. When deciding to buy, one has to look more at the
practical and economical advantages and disadvantages of both systems.
The automatically fed systems require less attention from the owner. This is because
the straw lane and the cutter supply the furnace with straw when it is needed. Straw bales
will need to be added to the straw lane every two or three days, depending on the length
of the straw lane (Nielsen, 2000). On the other hand the manually fed furnace has to be
fed 1 4 times a day, depending on the capacity, and the heat consumption (Nielsen,
2000).
The manually fed systems are more reliable because they are equipped with an
accumulation tank. It stores a large quantity of hot water which can be used as a backup
81
(Nielsen, 2000). The accumulation tank is normally containing 60-80 liters of water per
kg of straw that the combustion chamber can contain (Nikolaisen, 1998). In addition to
that, the manually fed systems do not depend on electricity to be supplied with fuel, as
that is done manually with a tractor.
In relation to the CO-emission, the automatically fed systems are better, with a typical
emission as low as 0.02 %. However, for the manually fed systems, the emissions,
typically of less than 0.1 %, are still low (Sktt and Hansen, 2000).
2.3.2.2 Pelletization of Grasses for Heat Generation
In order to increase the convenience and ease the handling of the low-grade fuel that
would ideally be used for heating, farmers could decide to equip themselves with another
type of burner that uses grass pellets as a fuel source.
Pelletization is a process through which biomass such as alfalfa or wood is
compressed under high heat and pressure conditions to form small glue-stick-like
pellets that can be handled a lot more easily. Wood pellets are commonly sold bagged on
the market, and the technology and facilities have been developed in Sweden for bulk
delivery and handling of pellets. Such a bulk delivery system makes the use of this type
of fuel for heating very similar to oil from the consumer perspective (Jannasch et al.,
2001b).
Advantages of pelletization over direct use of the biomass include minimizatioin of
dust produced, ease of handling and flow rate control (because pellets are a free flowing
fuel), increased energy density (easing storage and transportation) and increased
uniformity and stability permitting more efficient combustion control. (Samson et al.,
2000). Pelletization is made in specialized plants. Plants pelletizing alfalfa or wood can
be found in Denmark. We contacted Carsten Vesthammer from Alfax A/S, an alfalfa
dehydration plant in Kolding, Jutland, and he gave us useful information about the
present situation in Denmark. There are 7 plants that can pelletize and dehydrate alfalfa,
and 1 for wood throughout Denmark at the moment. Other plants can pelletize materials,
but cant dehydrate them. There are 25 of those for alfalfa, and 5 or 6 for wood
(Vesthammer, 2003)
If a market was developed for pellet based heating systems on farms, but also in
residences and cities, such plants could become common in the countryside, and be found
in the neighborhood of several organic farms growing energy grasses. Pellet conversion
facilities are usually much smaller (200 t day-1) than ethanol plants (1500 t day-1), and are
thus much more likely to be situated closer to the site where grasses are produced and
used. (Samson et al., 2000)
Trials have been conducted in Quebec which have shown that facilities used for
alfalfa dehydration can be used for pelletization of switchgrass with very little
modifications. Research is ongoing to maximize the energy efficiency and the throughput
of the process. (Jannasch et al., 2001a)
82
Fuel pellets have more uses than the raw material used to make them, hence their
higher exergy. In order to create such fuel, and increase the exergy level, some energy
must be invested. A study by Samson et al. (2000) has generated numbers and predictions
for switchgrass pelleting based on analysis of the present pelletization industry and
experimental trials. Their energy requirement analysis is summarized in table 16.
Table 16: Energy Analysis of Switchgrass Pellet Production
Process
GJ t-1
Switchgrass establishment
0.028
Switchgrass fertilization and application
0.460
Switchgrass harvesting
0.231
Switchgrass transportation (25 km)
0.072
Pellet mill construction
0.043
Pellet mill operation
0.244
Management, sales, billing and delivery of pellets
0.193
Total Input Energy
1.271
Total Output Energy
18.5
Energy Output / Input ratio
14.6
Source: Samson et al., 2000
Switchgrass pelletization would represent an investment of 0.359 0.409 GJ t-1

according to their estimates (including pellet mill operation, mill construction and
transportation for 25 km). The total energy output is 18.5 GJ t-1 (Samson et al., 2000). If
we calculate, this added energetic cost for pelletization and transport for 50 km (back and
forth) would represent only 2.3% of the total energy output for the farmer, which makes
the efficiency of the pelletization equal to about 97.7%.
The 2 major elements requiring energy in the pelletization process are: downsizing
the bulk material to a suitable size for pelleting, and the pelletization itself. Reducing
energy requirements for these 2 steps would create strong net energy gains for
switchgrass fuel pellet production (Samson et al., 2000). Economics of the situation
would have to be worked out separately, and would also be determinant in farmers
choices, but this is out of the scope of this project.
There are several types of pellet stoves available in Denmark.
There are small, nice models, looking like the old-fashion
woodburning stoves, like Baby Flame (figure 17), with a
capacity of 1.7 5.1 kW (to heat 120 m2) (Hedestoker, 2003).
There are also larger, effective models for heating, and for hot
domestic water, with a capacity of 120 kW (PowerMatic, 2003).
And of course, there are sizes in between.
Figure 17:
Baby Flame
Some models are able to burn wood pellets, grains, saw dust,
woodchips, and several other materials (Hedestoker, 2003). The
efficiency is 89-91% for wood pellets and grain, and a little
83
Source: Hedestoker
2003
lower for woodchips (Baxi, 2003). Wiborg (2001) says that the efficiency for burning
wood pellets and grain is 80%, which is lower than Baxis (2003) estimate. We should be
aware that Baxi produces those burners, and therefore are interested in the highest
possible estimate; whereas Wiborg (2001) is representing the Danish Agricultural
Advisory Service, and might give a more objective estimate.
The pellet stoves can be delivered in various ways; one option is combined all-in-one
units, containing the furnace unit, kettle and hopper for the fuel. The furnace unit can also
be mounted into an existing kettle from an oil furnace (PowerMatic, 2003). When
replacing a worn out oil burner, buying a wood pellet furnace is a very interesting option
for farmers, but also for the general public. The Danish Agricultural Advisory Service,
has done some calculations on the capital investment and fuel costs, for five different
cases. Two of the cases were concerning rapeseed oil, so they are not within the focus of
this project. The remaining three cases were:
1. Buying a new conventional burner (exclusive kettle), for using fossil burning oil
(this case is considered as a reference)
2. Buying a new wood pellet burner, to be fed with bought wood pellets.
3. Buying a new wood pellet burner, to be fed with own grain.
The investments are for all cases, spread out over 10 years, and the oil price for
reference is set to 5800 kr. per 1000 l, including taxes and delivery. The cost estimates
per year for the first 10 years were 25616 kr, 19245 kr, and 16873 kr for cases 1, 2, and 3
respectively (Wiborg, 2001). Although, none of the cases considered perennial grasses as
fuel supply, we assume that Case 3 is the closest estimate of the costs associated with use
of perennial grasses as a fuel source. The number could even be lower since it is
generally recognized that costs of production of grasses for energy are lower than those
of grain. In addition to that, loss of income (from potential grain sale) is included in the
calculations for scenario 3.
Infrastructures for pelletization of grasses are not so common in Denmark at the
moment. However, a dedicated farmer could very possibly bring his grass biomass to a
pellet factory, and store the pellets at the farm where he/she could use it for heating
purposes (provided there are pelletizing facilities in the neighborhood of the farm). Pellet
producers have told us that they could produce pellets from grasses and bag them, or give
them back in a bulk format. The company official interviewed said they would be
interested to pelletize grasses and they would charge about 5000 kr. per hour. In one
hour, he estimated that 7-10 t of biomass could be processed (Vesthammer, 2003).
Development of a system for bulk delivery such as what exists in Sweden for wood
pellets could help the market to expand to residential heating in cities and would further
reduce costs of heating for farmers using pellet stoves.
It seems like there is potential for the development of pellet heating systems based on
perennial grass biomass in Denmark. The potential market is however in a tricky position
where the consumers are not assured of the availability of the fuel, which makes them
question the acquisition of a pellet stove. On the other side, the producers want to be sure
84
that they will have a market for the pellets that they could produce. Governments would
probably have to offer support to one or to both of the sides involved to allow the
industry to get started and to expand.
2.3.3. Off-Farm Use of Perennial Grasses

Even though off-farm processing has its disadvantages mainly that it conflicts with
the nearness principle of organic farming it also has advantages. Besides, products
transformed off-farm can be brought back and used on-farm. One of the big advantages
of off-farm processing is the possibility for a larger scale operation. To a certain extent, a
large-scale production will be more efficient and cheaper per unit. It also lowers the
demand of know-how for the single farmer.
In this subsection, we will look at gasification of perennial grasses (anaerobically and
by pyrolysis), ethanol production, and the new developments in combining these 2
processes. Power and heat generation from biomass and the related issues will also be
discussed.
2.3.3.1 Gasification
Gasification is the process, where a solid fuel is transformed into a combustible gas.
The concept of gasification has been known before 1839, when the first commercial
gasifier for continuous gasification was installed (Knoef, 2003).
During the 2nd world war, normal street cars had their engine modified, and were
equipped with a small scale gas-generator, because of the lack of gasoline. They were
using peat as a fuel source. Later, in the 1970s, the energy crisis brought renewed
interest for biomass gasification. Finally in the beginning of the 1990s the climate
change discussion and the Kyoto Protocol brought back the interest for gasification of
biomass (Knoef, 2003).
Biogas can be used for combustion in a gas burner, producing heat, or it can be used
for electricity production where a generator is powered by a gas engine. The most energy
effective way to use biogas is in a combined heat and power (CHP) plant, where the
cooling water from the gas engine is used to heat space and for hot domestic water. The
efficiency of using gas in such plants is 85%. There is an additional loss in the processing
from biomass to gas (Vvs-branchen, 2003).
2.3.3.1.1. Anaerobic Digestion
Biomass can be transformed into biogas, by anaerobic digestion. In principle, all kind
of organic matter can be processed into biogas. However, in order to make it more
economically profitable, with the low energy prices of today, manure has to be
incorporated into the process (Vvs-branchen, 2003).
85
2.3.3.1.2. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the name for a process, through which compounds are broken down by
heat (Helt and Rancke-Madsen, 1991). Gas can be obtained through pyrolysis. The
process is then an incomplete combustion of the biomass. Biomass is fed into a reactor,
where a fireplace underneath heats it up. A limited amount of oxygen, air, steam, or a
combination is introduced into the reactor. Because of the heat and limited amount of air,
the biomass breaks down, and internal reactions form a combustible gas (Knoef, 2003).
The pyrolysis starts at about 200C, this forms gas and coke. The coke can be further
gasifiered by raising the temperature to more than 800C (Serup, 1999). Pyrolysis can
increase the efficiency of a CHP straw fired power plant. A test has been made at Haslev
Kraftvarmevrk, where a pyrolysis unit was built into a normal straw fired system. The
pyrolysis unit produced gas for an overheater, which was increasing the temperature of
the steam from the main straw kettle. This created a higher pressure in the turbine, and
thereby a higher power output. The pyrolysis unit is heated by residual heat from the
overheater. There has been some problems in optimizing the pyrolysis process, but in
new power plants, it is expected that the concept could increase the efficiency by 10-15%
(Serup, 1995).
2.3.3.2 Ethanol Production
Bioethanol is a CO2 neutral fuel, which can be used as an additive to gasoline or
replace diesel oil entirely. In normal (unaltered) gasoline engines, ethanol can be used as
a 10% blend with gasoline. If 10% of all gasoline used in Denmark, was replaced with
bioethanol, the countrys entire emissions of greenhouse gases would decrease by 2%
(Nielsen, 2001).
The following roughly shows the process, from biomass to ethanol (Samson and
Omielan, 1998):
The biomass is pretreated with steam or chemicals, to break down the lignin
bonds, and make the carbohydrates available for enzymatic conversion
Enzymes convert (hydrolyzing) the carbohydrates into sugars
Fermentative microorganisms process the sugars into ethanol
The diluted ethanol is finally distilled
According to Brown (1994), one ton of switchgrass can be processed into 400 liters
ethanol. Straw has an average burning value of 14.7 MJ kg-1 (Nikolaisen, 1998). Ethanol
has a value of 20.5 GJ m-3 (Andersen et al.,1995). Finally, when ethanol is processed into
electricity by an ethanol powered generator or used in an engine, there is a loss of 15% in
the engine leading to an efficiency of 85% (Vvs-branchen, 2003). This data was used to
determine the efficiency of grass based ethanol. The result of 47.4% indicates the
percentage of energy contained in raw biomass that is actually transformed into work by
a generator or engine. The following shows numbers and calculation to determine the
energy efficiency of grass based ethanol:
86
Energy stored in 1 ton of biomass

Ethanol produced from 1 ton of biomass
Energy in 0.4 m3 ethanol
Energy output in electricity
Efficiency: biomass ethanol electricity
1000 kg * 14.7 MJ kg -1
400 l * 0.001 m3 l-1
0.4 m3 * 20.5 GJ m-3
8.2 GJ * 85 %
6.97 GJ/14.7 GJ * 100
14.7 GJ
0.4 m3
8.2 GJ
6.97 GJ
47.4 %
So far, bioethanol has been quite expensive, and for that reason, it has not been
competitive with gasoline or diesel oil. However, new processing technologies,
combining the ethanol production with gasification, are about to make bioethanol a
profitable business (Nielsen, 2001). We will come back to that later on. The following
section will concentrate on the potential outlets for energy grasses for which the
infrastructures are best developed in Denmark at the moment.
2.3.3.3 Combustion for Heat and Power Generation
Combustion off-farm can be used for production of heat only, power only, or
combined heat and power (CHP). Heat production takes place in district heating plants. A
district heating plant is defined as a plant, producing heat but not electricity (Nikolaisen,
1998).
Biomass can be burnt as a stand-alone fuel, or it can be burnt together with coal or
gas, called co-combusting or co-firing. Co-combustion can take place in existing plants
burning coal, or gas. The biomass is chopped up, and blown into the combustion
chamber, together with the coal dust or the gas. The problem with this way of burning
biomass is the altered quality of the ashes. It is therefore preferred to burn biomass in
separate systems (Jensen, 2003)
The concept of producing combined heat and power is basically to use the waste
heat from power generation, to heat up houses, instead of leading the heat into the sea,
with the cooling water (Nikolaisen, 1998). The efficiency when burning straw for
combined heat and power is about 90%, according to Grydgaard (2003).
2.3.3.3.1. Ash From Coal Co-Fired With Biomass
The limiting factor of co-combusting biomass together with coal is the consequence
on the utilization of the ash. Disposing of large amounts of mixed coal and biomass ash is
economically and environmentally unacceptable (Gylling, 2001b).
Ash from pure combustion of coal can be used primarily in two ways: as a component
in concrete, or as a raw material in the production of cement. The addition to concrete is
regulated by a European standard which, at present, only allows addition of pure coal ash.
Within a couple of years, the regulation is to be changed, to allow a limited amount of cocombusted ash. The use as raw material in cement production is limited by the quality
demands from the industry. It is mainly the potassium and phosphorus present in the cofired ashes, that the industry does not want. (Gylling, 2001b)
87
2.3.3.3.2. Ash From Pure Biomass, and Co-Combustion With Gas

Combustion of gas does not leave any solid waste products, so the ash from biomass
co-fired with gas can be regarded as pure biomass ash (Jensen, 2003). Ashes from
combustion of pure biomass can, according to Landbrugsinfo (2000), be used in
agriculture as fertilizer or soil amendment.
The following regulations are only valid when the ash producer(s) are not a single or
a few households applying their own ashes on their own fields. In this case, the
regulations do not apply because the risks of heavy metal contamination are fairly low. It
is possible for a farmer to return the ash generated on the farm onto their fields.
The following regulations are about ash from wood pellets and straw (including the
string from bales) and related straw crops, including annual and perennial grasses such as
Miscanthus, wheat and the like.
The amount of ash, which is allowed to be applied on one ha of land, depends on the
content of cadmium. The allowed amounts according to cadmium content are showed in
table 17, from Landbrugsinfo (2000):
Table 17: Maximum Cadmium Content in Ash for Disposal on Fields
Category Ash description
Maximum Cd-content Maximum allowed
delivery
(mg Cd kg DM-1)
H1 (1)
H2
H3
T1
T2
T3
H+T
Straw ash
Straw ash
Straw ash
Wood ash
Wood ash
Wood ash
Mixed straw and wood ash
5
2.5
0.5
15
8
0.5
5
0.5 t DM ha-1 5yr-1

1.5 t DM ha-1 5yr-1
5.0 t DM ha-1 5yr-1
0.5 t DM ha-1 10yr-1
1.0 t DM ha-1 10yr-1
7.5 t DM ha-1 10yr-1
0.5 t DM ha-1 5yr-1
(1)
The letters H and T in the categories refer to the Danish names for straw (halm) and wood (tr).
Source: Landbrugsinfo, 2000
Beside the cadmium content, there are also threshold values for some other heavy
metals, as shown in table 18 (Landbrugsinfo 2000):
Tabel 18: Threshold Values for Heavy Metals in Ash for Disposal on Fields.
Heavy metal
Threshold value (mg kg DM-1)
Mercury (Hg)
0.8
Lead (Pb)
120(1)
Nickel (Ni)
30 (60)(2)
Chromium (Cr)
100
(1)
(2)
-1
-1
For private gardens, the value for Pb is 60mg kg DM , and 25 mg Arsenic kg DM .

-1
If the nickel content is between 30 and 60 mg kg DM , the ash can be used as category T1 or H1.
88
Organic regulations will have to adapt and specify values acceptable for organic
production if organic farmers want to recycle the ashes from combustion of biomass. At
the moment, organic regulations allow for application of limited amounts of ashes, only if
they come from organic crops (Hvelplund, 2003). Knowing that ashes from organic and
conventional biomass are likely to be mixed, it is likely to cause problems to organic
farmers who would like to recover the nutrients contained in ashes. The organic
movement should maybe reconsider its regulations.
2.3.3.4. Combined Bioethanol, Biogas, Heat and Power Production
To minimize the amount of waste products from the different kinds of biomass
energy production, and to recycle as many raw materials as possible, it is interesting to
look at how the different productions can contribute to each other.
There are mainly two research programs going on at the moment. The first one is
concerning ethanol and biogas production (Nielsen, 2001), and the other is concerning
combustion of biomass and ethanol production (Christensen and Nielsen, 2002)
The program concerning ethanol and biogas is taking place at the Danish national
laboratory in Ris. As mentioned in the section about ethanol production, the biomass is
exposed to heat or chemicals during the pretreatment. This process can cause the straw to
release acids, which can break down the sugars. This is of course not desirable, as the
sugars are going to be processed into ethanol. The problem can be avoided by adding
basic waste slurry, from an affiliated biogas plant (Nielsen, 2001).
In the next step, the biomass mix is transferred to a fermentation tank at 40C.
Commercial enzymes break down the cellulose and most of the hemi-cellulose into
sugars. Yeast is then introduced to process the sugars into ethanol. The temperature is
raised to 70C, and the ethanol gets distilled off. The waste product is a mixture of water,
lignin and various organic residues. So far this has been considered as a waste, which was
expensive to get rid of (Nielsen, 2001). It can also be dried and burnt for electricity
generation.
In the new concept, the waste product is brought to a biogas reactor, where bacteria
transform the waste products into gas and water. With this method, 65% of the
wastewater is re-circulated, and the residual waste after the second processing is used as a
fertilizer on the fields.
The price for bioethanol, produced this way, is expected to be 2.00 2.75 kr L-1
while the price for gasoline and diesel is 3.07 and 3.01 kr L-1 excluding taxes. This is a
very attractive price for a cleaner product.
The other project going on is rather new, it began the 1st December 2002. It is a large
European project in which the Danish power company Elsam A/S is involved
89
(Christensen and Nielsen 2002). The aim of the project is to remove the aggressive
components (causing corrosion, formation of clinker and useless ash), from the straw, by
using them for bioethanol production in the first place, and then use the dried waste
product as fuel in existing power plants.
2.3.3. Energy Utilization and Discussion

We have shown that there are several ways to process the PRG into useful energy of
different kinds. It is too complicated (especially given the time limits for this project) to
go into a complete energy output/input analysis. Not only would the numbers be very
dependent on specific field operations, field conditions, and weather data for example;
but also, the information is not available to make a complete analysis of the energy used
to keep a farm running or to produce machinery. It was decided that we would limit our
analysis to the efficiency ratios. In these energy ratios, the percentage of energy
recovered from the initial energy contained in the biomass is reflected.
The following table 19 shows the efficiencies of the different ways to utilize energy
from biomass. The data comes from the previous sub-sections.
Table 19: Energy Ratios of the Different Alternatives to Process Energy Grasses
Utilization method
Efficiency %
Off-farm CHP, with pyrolysis
91-91.5
Off-farm CHP
90
On-farm straw furnace
80-90
On-farm pellet furnace excl. pelletization
80-90
On-farm pellet furnace incl. Pelletization
78-88
Off-farm ethanol production
47.4
The highest efficiencies are achieved by producing heat and power off-farm, and if a
pyrolysis unit is built into the system, it is even more efficient. The energy costs for
transportation of the biomass to the plant are not included, neither are the losses of
electricity and heat through the distribution system.
On-farm furnaces in general have a slightly lower efficiency than the off-farm plants,
but when using the biomass on-farm, there is no (or not as much) energy used to
transport the biomass. Depending on the distance of the plant, and on the exact efficiency
of the on-farm furnace, it could easily be more efficient to burn the straw on-farm than to
export it. The capital investments for a single farmer to equip his farm and residence with
an efficient biomass furnace are also very low relative to the investment the society has to
make to develop the infrastructures for electricity generation from biomass and pyrolysis.
However, we should be aware that the small scale, on-farm systems probably do not have
the same efficient anti-pollution equipment that the larger scale facilities have.
Off-farm ethanol production is the least efficient of the processes investigated. But
ethanol has the advantage that it can be used as an engine fuel, and it can be stored for
later use, whereas heat and power can not be stored easily. The higher exergy of the
90
ethanol explains the greater energy investment. Our role in this report was to provide data
for basic comparison. Governments will have to analyse the potential benefits and
determine where the Danish society should invest. At the moment CHP is the most
available technology and the infrastructures already exist. However, to attain energy selfsufficiency, the Danish society should probably diversify its energy sources, and consider
some of the other alternatives offered by PRG biomass processing. In the next chapter,
results from the interviews of four different groups of people are presented. We tried to
discover what their perception was of the potential of perennial grasses as a bioenergy
crop in Denmark.
SUMMARY
Biomass can be used for production of energy on and off-farm

There are several alternatives: heat generation from grass bales, pelletization,
combined heat and power, ethanol production and gasification
When burning biomass on-farm, as well as off-farm, to produce heat and/or
power, the efficiency is rather high, roughly ranging from 80 90%
Ethanol production and utilization has the lowest efficiency (47.4%), but ethanol
is easier to handle than heat, and is a form of energy that can be stored.
At present, ethanol production from biomass is still too expensive. But if the new
research about combined bioethanol and biogas generation succeeds and shows
that it could be produced more cheaply, it could have a great potential and allow
the Danish society do displace some of the fossil fuel energy it uses at the
moment.
A lot of research and technological development still need to be done to optimise
on-farm as well as off-farm processing of grasses.
3. Opinions on Energy Crops

Beside the agronomical aspect, we also wanted to take a look at the general opinion
on energy crops, among researchers, advisors, farmers, and the energy processing
industry. We interviewed 11 persons belonging to one of these categories. They came
from various places in Denmark. A map is included in Appendix V to show where our
contacts came from. What is presented in the section is not intended to be representative
of what all Danish advisors, farmers, processors or researchers may think. Because of
time limitations, we could only interview a limited number of persons in each category.
We tried to identify and contact key actors in each sector, but all we can present here is
their personal opinions about the situation.
We would have preferred to interview people directly, but due to the time limitations
(for us, as well as for the people we wanted to interview), we decided prepare different
questionnaires tailored to the different groups of people. We then sent the questionnaires
by e-mail.
91
Some of the answers were returned by e-mail. Videoconferences and phone

interviews were also preformed, based on the questionnaires sent. We decided to design
our questionnaire in an open style, to obtain more detailed answers, instead of asking
closed, or maybe only yes/no questions. Because of that, and because people have a
tendency to talk about what they find interesting and/or are working with, not all our
questions were answered, some of them were misunderstood, and some answers were offtopic, in relation to this project. This, however, also provided us with answers to
questions we did not ask.
Because the answers were given in so different ways from different people, and
because this have never meant to be a statistic data analysis, we have chosen not to
include the raw answers in this paper, but in the following, we have extracted the major
points from each group of people, and tried to group and summarize similar answers.
Even though they were interesting, we have decided to exclude the answers, not directly
related to this project.
We did not have the resources to conduct a complete and extensive study. The
objective of the process was to compare our ideas and conclusions with the real world.
It enabled us to see what are the most important issues concerning perennial grasses from
different perspectives. And it showed that economics, although it is not the focus of this
report, is probably the most determinant factor.
It can be seen that often the same themes and arguments were brought by the
different categories of actors in the potential perennial grass bioenergy industry.
3.1. Researchers
We interviewed two young researchers working for the Danish Institute of
Agricultural Science (DIAS) in the Research Centre in Foulum, Jutland. One was Tommy
Dalgaard who is focusing on energy consumption in agriculture. The other was Uffe
Jrgensen, who did a lot of research on energy crops in the past. At the moment he is
focusing on water protection issues (Water environmental plan III (VMPIII)). But he
still keeps in contact with some international energy agencies, and is participating in a
project about miscanthus.
They also co-operate with DARCOF (Danish Agriculture Research Centre for
Organic Farming). It is an organization funding research and sometimes inviting
specialists to team up, and prepare Synthesis of Knowledge about hot topics related to
ecological agriculture. Their aim is to define the areas where development and research
might be needed. They are presently looking at energy crop production in organic
agriculture.
Tommy Dalgaard was a contact suggested by the supervisor of our project. We
obtained the contact for Uffe Jrgensen from Energistyrelsen, and when we talked to
Tommy Dalgaard, he also recommended that we talk to Uffe Jrgensen. We sent them
92
the questionnaires (Appendix VI) in advance, and then the interviews were done by
videolink. The interviews were focused on the researchers perception of the energy
crops issues, especially in relation to organic farming. However, we also asked general
questions about the status of the biomass industry in Denmark, and some specific
questions concerning the three species investigated in our project.
3.1.1. Perception of the Present Situation

The present situation of energy production in Denmark is that approximately 10% of
the electric power generated comes from biomass. Most of the biomass derived energy
comes from burning straw. This is done at the large scale in power plants, but also at the
farm scale level. Some farmers have equipped themselves with stoves where they can
burn straw bales and wood chips. The interest for on-farm energy production came about
in the 70s when oil prices went up. Farmers burnt straw to heat their houses and stables.
At the moment, as grain prices are going down, some farmers burn grain as well. Some
farmers also export their oilseed rape to Germany, where it is used for biodiesel
production. The reason why they export is that it is more profitable. In fact in Denmark
rape seed oil is taxed because the government is not that supportive of this type of
biomass.
Denmark has ambitious goals to increase the share of biomass derived energy in the
next 30 years. These goals were implemented into the Energy Plan 21. The Danish
government also prepared a Biomass Action Plan, focusing on straw and woodchips. At
present there are no direct subsidies for energy crop production. However, as opposed to
fossil fuels, biomass derived energy and other renewable energies are not taxed. Also setaside subsidies promote energy crops indirectly. In Denmark these subsidies started in the
1990s.
So far the energy crop production has been done mainly at the research level. In
Denmark there was a big development in research in the 1980s (it was then justified by
the high price of oil) and also in the 1990 after the introduction of set-aside subsidies. In
recent years the research has slowed down, and at present, the only research going on is
the continuation of experiments which started some years ago. In Denmark the research
has been mostly done on willow and miscanthus. A little bit of research was done also on
reed canary grass, but switchgrass was never tried in Denmark. The lack of interest for
the latter comes from established tradition for willow and miscanthus. Another crop
under investigation is Spartina ssp. (a C4 native species widely growing in Denmark).
One farmer in Jutland has ongoing experiments about this plant.
Some farmers are very engaged in the promotion of energy crops, and they are
cooperating with researchers. In general though, there is a lack of interest from farmers,
especially the organic ones. Since there are no special education programs concerning
energy crops, farmers interested in their production mainly contact the Research Centre
in Foulum, Energy Advisory Services or companies like Nordic Biomass or Ny Vra
Energy.
93
The fact that organic farmers are not interested in energy crop production is strange
for the researchers. They think that organic farmers should be concerned about renewable
energies. The researchers say that this lack of interest could be caused by the fact that
organic farmers often need all their area for food and fodder production (especially dairy
farms which constitute the majority of the converted farms in Denmark). Also because of
the high premiums on organic food, the farmers tend to produce food rather than energy
crops. Farmers do not have enough experience with energy crops, and as they are very
busy, they have no time to start being concerned, and research information about energy
crops. The researchers hope that the Synthesis of Knowledge about energy crops, which
they are working on now, will initiate the interest.
Why do the researchers think that society should be interested in energy crop
production? From their point of view, the major reason for growing energy crops is the
substitution of fossil fuels and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere. However the production of energy from biomass will require a lot of land,
therefore there needs to be other benefits.
Among these other benefits one of the researchers stressed that energy crops can
contribute to the protection of water resources by reducing leaching, which is a key
problem in Danish agriculture. Another often mentioned benefit is the increase of
biodiversity, but the researcher raised question about it since energy crops are mainly
grown in monocultures. Small scale and more diversified production, for example
combined food and energy (CFE) systems, are interesting in terms of biodiversity, but the
management to make them efficient is difficult. It was also mentioned that economically,
production of energy crops could become a good option for farmers in the future.
From the wide range of energy crops, the researchers would prefer perennial grasses
because of their environmental benefits, and the possibility to grow them in low input
systems. Although in Europe more attention is given to liquid biofuel production like
biodiesel and ethanol, the researchers think that it is not the best solution. The crops
grown for these alternatives have much lower output/input ratio than perennial grasses,
and much higher requirements for pesticides. On the other hand, the energy needed in
agriculture at the moment is liquid energy.
Concerning the potential to grow perennial grasses in organic farming, they think it is
possible even though it is more difficult. For example when harvesting miscanthus, the
machinery needs to be modified, which is not justifiable for a small scale operation in
terms of time, money and energy. Another problem of perennial grasses is dealing with
weeds in the first year. This is much easier and cheaper in conventional agriculture.
Furthermore, it is also possible to produce perennial grasses in low-input conventional
systems since the grasses usually do not respond to fertilizer.
The researchers think that a good possibility for organic farmers could be to grow
clover grass for digestion, and use the residues to fertilize the fields. It would be better
also in terms of nutrient cycling. The nutrient cycling issue is a major thing which will
need to be addressed before energy crops get approval of organic farmers. Exporting
94
biomass means exporting nutrients. Therefore the possibility of using sewage sludge and
ashes from combustion should be investigated for organic agriculture. Use of such
materials is not allowed at the moment, and because of the precautionary principle they
should not be used on food crops. However, using these materials to fertilize the energy
crops, and recuperate the nutrients from cities in such a way would make a lot of sense.
Organic farming should aim at closing the nutrient cycles. In their Synthesis of
Knowledge, the researchers will question the rules of organic farming, and their opinion
is that such practices should be allowed for energy crop production.
On the other hand they say that it is possible that even if the use of sewage sludge and
ashes is allowed in the future, organic farmers might not use them because they could be
afraid to loose the consumers confidence. They need to get the premiums for their
products. The premiums come from the fact that people are willing to pay more for safe
food which is free of pollutants. Although it was demonstrated that the quality of sewage
sludge has improved significantly (now it is often cleaner than pig slurry) and that the
ashes from separate combustion of biomass are almost free of heavy metals, the risk of
contamination still remains in the publics opinion. Another argument against the use of
sewage sludge in organic agriculture is that about 90% of households are consuming
conventional foods. Their rejects are thus not organic. Since the priority of organic
farmers is food production, it is possible that they would not threaten their main source of
revenue to fertilize energy crops. These issues will obviously have to be discussed and
the researchers hope that the publication of the Synthesis of Knowledge will start the
debate.
3.1.2. Perception of the Future

Concerning the future of energy crops in organic farming there are also other barriers.
According to one of the researcher the biggest challenge will be to stimulate the interest,
and educate the farmers about energy crops. The other one sees the barrier in the fact that
it is not profitable, and there are no higher prices for energy products from organic
farming. It is not likely that there will be a market for organic energy. Rather than
exporting the energy products, he sees the potential in on-farm energy processing and
use. The farmers can use their own pellets for heating houses, drying grain This could
also be used as an argument by organic farmers: Not only are they organic, but they also
take care of the environment by using their own renewable energy.
However, concerning the energy crop production in general, the researchers are
optimistic. Any changes will be positive for energy crops. In the future it is expected that
farmers will get special subsidies for energy crop production.
The role of researchers in the promotion of energy crops is to contribute data and
scenario analysis. Those can give the government incentives to get the biomass industry
started. Their role is to show that current energy use is unsustainable and that GHGs are a
real problem. They should also make the research and calculations to show that energy
crops, especially perennial grasses, can help reducing GHG emissions, and have other
environmental benefits. This can then serve as an argument for policy makers to justify
95
potential investments in the bioenergy sector. Researchers also have a role in relation to
farmers. By the creation of demonstration sites, they can show farmers that growing
energy crops is viable and economically justifiable. To prove that, research at a large
scale will be necessary.
3.2. Advisors
The course secretary, Mette Zippora, put us in contact with Carsten Hvelplund
Jrgensen, who is an agronomist, and works as an organic advisor at kologisk
Rdgivning I/S, an independent organic advisory service centre, owned equally by
Nordvestsjllands Landboforening, Jyderup and Landbo Centrum, Borup. Our
supervisor suggested that we talk to Erik Fog, also an agronomist, from Dansk
Lanrbrugsrdgivning, Landscenteret, where he works as a Country-advisor for ecolog,
which means that he is the advisor of the advisors, and is not directly working with the
farmers.
We send the same advisor questionnaire (Appendix VII) to both Carsten Hvelplund
and Erik Fog, and called them to talk about it. Because of the lack of time, we did not
fully finish the interview with Erik Fog, but he sent us the remaining answers by e-mail.

The advisors said that information about energy crops is available in universities,
research centers and technical institutions, but not in a concrete, simple and summarized
form for farmers. Information on energy crops is, however, not requested by the farmers
very often. Therefore, the advisors have not been spending much time to find and
organize this information.
Most questions asked by farmers concerning alternative crops are about basket
weaving willow, which has nothing to do with energy production. This shows however
that some organic farmers might be interested in growing crops other than food crops.
We should keep in mind that willow for basket weaving, is usually done at a small scale,
which would not be ideal for energy production.
The concept of organic farmers producing their own energy fits nicely into the
principles of organic agriculture, however it would still have to be viable. No matter how
good the idea is, nobody is going to do it at a large scale if it is not profitable. Farmers
invest their own money and their choices impact the net return at the end of the year.
They tend to make economically rational decisions.
One problem with organic energy crop production is that the subsidies for organic
farmers are given on a crops basis (mainly food crops). The present regulations make it
economically less attractive (or impossible) to grow energy crops. Another problem is
that at present, fossil fuels are too cheap, which makes organic and conventional energy
crop production difficult.
96

Advisors said that in a near future, it is not likely that organic farmers are going to
grow perennial grasses for energy production (again because of the economic situation).
The issue of subsidization was very crucial according to advisors perspective.
Recognition that perennial grasses can reduce leaching for example, could maybe lead to
new subsidization schemes like environmental premium. Furthermore, there would
probably be more farmers interested in energy crops if the subsidies were based on the
area rather than the crop. Area based subsidies would mean that farmers could get the
same subsidies, no matter if they were growing food or non-food (energy) crops. These
kinds of subsidies could really help the development of the bioenergy grasses as a crop
on organic farms. Another situation in which energy crops could become profitable is if
the price of fossil fuels raised enough to make renewable energy sources cheaper. Those
increases prices could either be caused by the market or by government intervention.
Advisors see that there could be other reasons to grow perennial grasses besides
energy production. Perennial grasses can contribute to the buildup of soil organic matter,
and they can also be used on wetlands to reduce leaching. It is quite interesting,
agronomically, to grow such crops. Furthermore, energy crops can be fertilized with
human sewage sludge and/or blood and bone meal, because they are non-food crops. This
allows to recuperate nutrients while reducing the risk of getting bacteria directly into our
food. However, we still have to be aware of the risks of accumulation of heavy metals,
and spread of diseases.
If it becomes profitable, or at least not a deficit business, the organic farmers will
probably be ready to grow energy crops. The requests from the consumer and potential
markets will influence the farmers decision about whether to grow energy crops or not.
Again, advisors insisted that economics prevail in farmers decision making: the farmers
do not want to grow a crop, which they will not sell.
A separate market for organic energy is probably not realistic in advisors opinion. If
ever it happened, it would only be for a small part of the population, because consumers
in general have a tendency to choose the cheapest product. A certification for organic
farmers who would grow their own energy: Non-CO2 emitter organic farmers or
Energy neutral organic food (A label to be placed next to the red on the wares),
could be a way to make the organic farmers interested in growing their own energy. On
the other hand, it is not likely that the organic movement would appreciate this
certification, because it would split up the farmers in two groups: the good guys (NonCO2 emitters) and the bad (or not so good) guys (CO2 emitters).
3.3. Organic Farmers

We sent an organic farmer questionnaire (Appendix VIII) to several organic
farmers. We received one back from Per Klster. He studies as an agronomist, and is now
97
an organic farmer in Northern Zealand. We have contacted him following the suggestion
from our supervisor. When we talked to Erik Fog (the advisor at the Danish Agricultural
Advisory Service) he mentioned that an organic farmer, Sven Nybo Rasmussen, on
Djursland, in the mid-eastern part of Jutland, could be a good contact for us. This contact
had also been suggested by Andreas Neergaard, one of our teachers. Because of lack of
time, we called Sven to talk about the questionnaire previously sent by e-mail.
Sven Rasmussen is a doctor, but in 1989 he bought a farm in eastern Jutland. 1/3 of
his farm area is covered by forest, and he has a wood chip furnace installed, to produce
heat and hot domestic water in the winter. He is not growing PRG, but he uses biomass
on-farm for energy production, hence the relevance of interviewing him.

Farmers said that nowadays, the interest from the society in green energy, including
energy from biomass, is rather low, which is disappointing. Politician are not including it
in their priorities, there is not enough research going on about it, and the farmers are
generally not growing energy crops as a consequence of the lack of interest from the
consumers. They said most of the information the farmers would need to begin growing
energy crops, is probably available in central places, but it is not being passed on to the
farmers by the advisors.
Organic farmers generally want to protect the environment, and therefore using
green energy should seem like a good idea to them. It is possible at the time. However,
much more work could be done in research, especially concerning mechanization. One
farmer said technologies need to be developed to make biomass production feasible for
farms, independent of their size, otherwise it will not be economically viable for the
smaller scale farmers.

For the development of energy crops, society needs to be concerned about the
associated environmental issues. More information would have to be available, and
pioneers would be needed to show how energy crops can be used in the real life, and not
only on paper. Farmers would also have to recognize that Danish agriculture should not
only produce food, but also energy. It would also be important, if they where supported
by some kind of subsidies.
It is likely that energy crops, especially perennial grasses, might have a future in
Danish organic agriculture. It surely has a potential, as is may help building up the soil,
reduce leaching, and it may also be good for the microbial biodiversity. One farmer said
that perennial grasses, to some extend, might form a kind of forest floor on the land. For
farmers, the disadvantage of growing perennial grasses is that it occupies land for several
years. It is not flexible, and requires long-term crop rotations. Farmers also have to be
aware of the problems of exporting nutrients, if they do not process it on-farm.
98
One of the main challenges for renewable and green energy in the future will be to
produce liquid fuels for transportation, which can compete with fossil fuels. One of the
farmers mentioned the potential to combine windmills and fuel cells (hydrogen) in
addition to biomass. It seems that the farmers interviewed are opened to alternative
energy sources and hope that the biomass industry will develop in the future.
3.4. Power Plants and Power Companies

We first contacted two Danish power plants. We were informed that they were using
some biomass. One of the plants was Avedrevrket in Copenhagen, where we contacted
Thomas Scott Lund (communication manager). The other plant was Grenaa
Kraftvarmevrk, in Djursland, in the mid-eastern part of Jutland. We talked to Flemming
Plovmann Srensen.
We had made a special questionnaire for power plant officials (Appendix IX), which
we sent to Thomas Lund and Flemming Srensen. Because of the time issue again, we
only talked briefly about the questions on the phone, and Flemming Srensen sent us
useful information by mail. Thomas Lund recommended that we talk to the power
companies rather than specific power plants, because they would be able to give us more
general information.
We then contacted Energi E2 A/S, the firm owning Avedrevrke, and e-mailed the
general manager of the communication department, Marianne Grydgaard. We sent a
shortened version of the power plant questionnaire (Appendix X) to Marianne Grydgaard,
and she replied by e-mail. We also contacted the company owning Grenaa
Kraftvarmevrk: Elsam A/S. At Elsam A/S, we talked to Jens Nybo Jensen, from the
communication department. Jens Jensen answered some of our questions by phone.
On top on that, we contacted a Finnish power plant, Alholmenskraft by e-mail. It is a
power plant burning strictly biomass. They are also buying biomass from a few organic
farmers. We send a modified version of our standard power plant questionnaire
(Appendix XI) to Tapani Tyynel, and he replied by e-mail.

Both power companies, Elams A/S and Energi E2, are burning biomass (among
others, in the form of straw) in some of their plants. According to the
Biomassehandlingsplanen (1993) and the Reform follow-up agreement (Energistyrelsen
2000), Danish power plants will have to use 1,2 million tons of biomass per year by 2005
(in the original agreement from 1993, this goal should have been achieved in 2000).
We mentioned in the processing section that it is possible to co-fire biomass with
fossil fuels, but most of the biomass burnt in Danish and the Finnish plants is actually
burnt in separate boilers. In most cases, the hot steam from the biomass boilers is directed
into the steam cycle of the fossil fuel boiler, and the two separate burning systems are
then powering the same generator.
99
By not co-firing biomass with fossil fuels, the power plants avoid the ash problems
mentioned in the processing part. For a long time, the power companies have been
working towards the goal of making ashes usable for the building industry. This goal has
been achieved, and the companies do not want to ruin the ashes (and waste money) by
co-combusting biomass with fossil fuels. Separate combustion of biomass also makes it
possible to return the bio-ash to the farmers, who use them as a fertilizer.
In Finland as well as in Denmark, the power companies are signing contracts with the
farmer about the delivery of straw. The companies prefer long-lasting contracts, so they
do not have to renegotiate every one or two years. Some farmers organize themselves so
they are able, as a group, to deliver larger amounts of biomass, and sign more profitable
contracts. The farmers store the straw until the power plants need it, but it is the
companies who pay for the transportation. When straw is delivered to the plant, it is spot
tested for moisture content, and the straw is rejected, and sent back to the farmer (at their
expense) if the moisture content is higher than 20%. At the Finnish plants, the desired
moisture content is 17%. The price will vary depending on the moisture content.

From the processors perspective, the big issue about using biomass (e.g. straw) as a
fuel in power and CHP plants is the content in aggressive chemical elements like
chlorides. Those corrode the kettles, and shorten their useful lives. Another issue is that
organic matter is a very heterogeneous fuel (compared to coal dust). It means that, for
instance, nodes from grasses will take longer to burn than the rest of the straw. There is
also a risk to have residues in combustion when they pass through the NOx filters in the
chimney. Burning residues will destroy the NOx filters, and make the NOx emission to the
atmosphere increase to levels higher than the threshold values.
From an environmental point of view, straw as a fuel clearly has an advantage in
comparison to fossil fuels. It is CO2 neutral, and it is renewable. However it was
mentioned that there are cheaper ways than burning biomass to reduce CO2 emissions.
From a technical point of view, straw is a difficult fuel source, and there are still some
problems to be solved. The power companies, however, have years of experience using
biomass as a fuel source, and have managed to overcome most of the problems that arose
in the past. Besides, there is still research going on trying to improve the quality of
biomass as a fuel source. The economy is the point where biomass fails: it has to be
subsidized (or fossil fuels have to be taxed) to make it economically viable.
Because conventional biomass nowadays is more expensive than fossil fuels, it is not
realistic to think that there will be a market for organic energy. With the present situation,
the power companies cannot afford to pay more for organic biomass. But of course, if the
consumers requested it, and wanted to pay the price to make it viable, there are no other
obstacles to organic energy.
100
SUMMARY
Researchers
Information is available to some extent, but still research and information
dispersal has to be done.
Among the energy crops, perennial grasses are preferred, because of low input
demands, and high yields.
Organic farmers should be concerned about energy crops.
Reasons for energy crop production:
o Substitution of fossil fuels and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
o Contribution to the protection of water resources by reducing leaching.
o Economically, potentially a good option for farmers in the future.
Perennial grasses as energy crops have a potential in ecological agriculture,
however there are some barriers:
o Export of nutrients, therefore use of sewage sludge and ashes from
combustion to fertilize energy crops should be allowed in organic farming.
o In the case of micsanthus, machinery needs to be modified.
o Dealing with weeds, which is necessary in the first year, is more difficult
in organic farming.
Reasons for the current lack of interest from farmers could be:
o they often need all their area for food and fodder production.
o because of the high premiums on organic food they tend to produce food
rather than energy crops.
o they do not have enough experience with those crops.
o they do not have time to search for the information about energy crops.
A big challenge is to stimulate the interest, and educate the farmers about energy
crops.
An interesting alternative for organic farmers could be to grow clover grass for
digestion, and use the residues to fertilize the fields.
For energy crops to have a future, it has to be economically viable, which will
require some kind of subsidization.
The role of researchers in the promotion of energy crops:
o contribute data and scenario analysis about how unsustainable the current
situation is in terms of energy use.
o show that energy crops have environmental benefits.
o show farmers that growing energy crops is viable and economically
justifiable by demonstration sites.
Advisors
Information is available in centralized places, but it is not organized and made
available for the farmers.
Under todays circumstances, organic energy does not have a future, since the
consumers are more interested in a lower price, than in environmental friendly,
sustainable products.
Farmers are not requesting information on how to grow and handle energy crops.
101
Changes have to be made in the subsidy regulations, to make it economically

viable to grow energy crops.
There is a potential for organic and conventional farmers to produce energy, and
on-farm energy production fits nicely with the principle of organic farming.
It would be nice to see the organic sector expand to energy production, but it will
depend on the consumers demands.
At present, it is not economically viable to grow energy crops, however it might
still be interesting because of the agronomic and environmental benefits.
Organic farmers
There is not enough information about energy crops coming out to the farmers.
On-farm production of energy is a good idea
Perennial grasses may have a lot of advantages (eg. enhance biodiversity and
reduce leaching), but they tie up the land for several years, and make the farm
system less flexible.
Pioneer projects have to be started to show farmers and society that there is a
potential in growing energy crops.
More interest from the consumer is required before organic farmers start
producing energy for off-farm use.
Farmers will have to become aware that they should not produce food only.
Subsidization regulations should be changed to make it more attractive to grow
energy crops.
Techniques for small scale, on-farm processing have to be developed, and the
have to be affordable for small farmers.
Research has to be done in the production of fuel for transportation from energy
crop.
Power plants and companies
There are some technical problems related to biomass as a fuel, but the major part
of those problems can be solved.
At present there are research programs going on, to improve the quality of
biomass as a fuel.
From an environmental point of view, biomass is a good fuel, but looking at the
CO2 emission, there would be cheaper ways to achieve Danish objectives.
Nowadays biomass as a fuel would need to be subsidized to make it viable
At present, it is not realistic to think that there will be a market for organic
energy, as the consumers do not want to pay more for the energy.
4. Societal, Economical and Political Considerations

The interviews we have reported have shown that there is a need to develop
arguments to convince the political forces of the potential of perennial grasses as a
bioenergy feedstock. This chapter will briefly discuss the fundamental reasons why, from
a societal point of view, the use of perennial grasses is potentially a particularly valuable
enterprise. It is beyond the scope of this project to supply the reader with a complete
102
reflection including full economic costs and political analysis. The chapter is mainly
aimed at integrating many of the notions and concepts that were looked upon previously
with broader notions about the society. We will look at perennial grasses and bioenergies
from another angle, from the societys point of view. The chapter is separated in two
sections, one presenting the potential benefits or what Denmark could obtain from
massively introducing perennial grasses in the countryside and the other about what it
could cost to the society to introduce them, and what changes are necessary to achieve
energetic sustainability.
4.1. What Denmark Could Obtain From PRG

Earlier it has been shown that there are numerous ecological goods and services with
manifest benefits at many levels within and beyond agriculture. Denmark and other
countries are confronted by a number of realities which can be ameliorated through
constructively using set-aside land while meeting longer term CO2 emission reduction
targets, and perennial grasses are a part of that.
The Danish strategy to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives includes doubling the
area under forestry (up to 12% of land area) for year 2030 (Danish Nature, 2001). Carbon
sequestration is limited by the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. It takes time to build
soil organic matter to lock up carbon in this way. Forest based cropping takes a long time
to reach maturation (30 to 100+ year cycles). In contrast farm based energy crops like
perennial grasses can be harvested in the 2-20 year cycle. Although the carbon absorbed
from the atmosphere during growth will be re-emitted during combustion, carbon can be
effectively removed from the atmosphere by storage in the roots and incorporation into
soil organic matter. (Grubb et al.,1998 )
The Danish government should aim at careful balancing of forestry crop rotations
(very long cycle) with increased shorter term perennial crops (long cycle) as it would
establish a long-term trend of effective carbon lock up. Economic incentives to encourage
the establishment of carbon sinks would also tend to favour a higher yield over a longer
time period compared to annual energy crops (short cycle). Longer rotations have the
benefit of lower inputs over their life cycle while maximising biomass gains for the
society.
A major consideration in growing biomass crops must be fuel substitution. If
alternative fuels are available from shorter term, even annual cropping cycles, then it
follows there must be a potential to reduce fossil fuel consumption (in theory). This fossil
fuel will itself remain as a carbon bank which otherwise would have been contributing
to even more CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, society will most
likely greatly benefit from this reserve of fossil fuels in the future as they are an
important resource for commodities other than energy provision. As a general statement
as this may not really apply to the Danish society a reduced dependency on fossil
fuel imports and the associated increase in a countrys economic and political autonomy
is another huge benefit awaiting a society which successfully develops its bioenergy
103
sector. It makes a lot of sense for a country to aim at achieving energy self-sufficiency in
the future.
At a certain level of abstraction the basic tenets of ecological agriculture apply at a
higher or meta level, and exemplify how society could benefit from perennial grasses.
The recycling of nutrients can be equated with the recycling of embodied energy: the
maximum empower principle where every opportunity is taken to extract energy and use
it to productive effect (exergy) for maximum gain in the system as a whole rather than
allowing it to be wasted (Odum, 1996). Biodiversity might also be considered in terms of
socio-diversity with an increased range of skills, aptitudes and dependencies between cooperators in a diversified landscape no longer constrained to food production alone. Intercropping can be taken at the landscape level to include a new variability in the
surroundings with hedgerows, and marginal land being used productively for energy
crops while allowing for multi-functional land use (Danish Nature and Environmental
Policy, 1999)
The environmental improvements made and sustained by farmers needs to be
appreciated by many public service agencies and society in general. Positive
contributions by a farmer friendly media could also be beneficial, and help the whole
Danish society to become more environmentally aware and responsible.
Introduction of perennial grasses would also impact the countryside and its culture in
general. Here culture refers to a wide range of concepts which benefit society as a whole.
Local energy production will inevitably stimulate the employment in rural areas. While
farmers have a significant role as food producers, they might find themselves other roles
and responsibilities. PRG production in the future may supplement the income of farmers
and shift their role away from food production towards the environmental goods and
services they can also provide. There are many historical and cultural factors that have
enabled farmers to create the countryside landscape that is currently inherited. As with
many things, it is important to recognise, particularly in thinking about energy crops, that
long-term thinking and long-term perspectives are required. Co-operative ventures with
both other farmers and the energy producers will also facilitate cultural shifts in the
economic, social, and environmental landscape. Skill levels are also likely to increase.
4.2. Ready to Pay

There are many potential benefits for the society, but they also have a cost. As
Kuemmel (2002) suggests society has to be prepared to pay for biofuel production.
Society would have to pay at various levels. Consumers, companies, government
institutions, and also international coalitions such as the European Union will incur
economic costs, but also will have to change their way of thinking, doing, organizing, etc.
First, the societal transformation required to preserve the global environment means
that society has to recognise the importance of potentially minimising the amplitude of
anthropogenically caused global warming. Furthermore it has to develop sustainable
104
energy systems from renewable resources while there are sufficient supplies of fossil
fuels to enable the transition. The concerted recognition of the problem, and of the
countrys own flaws, is essential before any other step is taken.
Power stations in Denmark are using straw and, while this is potentially a renewable
resource, it is worth considering that the carbon lost from burning straw might have been
more appropriately used to lock up the nitrogen in the soil. It is a contradiction that while
Denmark continues to be concerned about CO2 emissions, nitrogen leaching, and nutrient
losses, straw burning on a large scale is tolerated. In the long-term the C:N ratios in the
soil are very important and straw has an important function in this (Lampkin, 1990). The
current use of straw in Denmark as a fuel source is not sustainable.
Politically, the department of energy in Denmark used to be attached to the
Environment Ministry. Now, since 2002, it is part of the Ministry of the Economy and
Energy. While farmers may identify with objectives of Agriculture and Environment
departments, it may be far more problematic for them to link with those of Economics
and Energy. Is energy a matter of business or environment? What are the true long-term
goals of the Danish society? Denmark will also have to recognize that even if windmills
are ruining the view in the countryside and along the coasts, the country is far from
reaching the goal of environmental responsibility in terms of energy (if there ever was
such a goal), and drastic changes have to be made.
Danish citizens will also need to put their hand in their pocket. Fossil fuels continue
to be used in abundance while their externality costs (if the reader will excuse the
tautology) are significantly imposed on the developing world burdened with the
consequences of global warming. In effect continued fossil fuel use subsidises the
emergy consumption of Denmark and elsewhere. Because renewable energy sources do
not impose such burdens on the environment, a subsidy from the government is fully
justified until such time as the emissions from oil use are quantified and monetised. Then
the polluter must pay principle may prevail. In such a scenario, consumers would likely
pay even higher taxes on fossil fuels than they are in the present situation. This is likely
to reduce their energy consumption. Companies producing the pollutants and using them
would also have to pay.
Prices of food also might be influenced by changes in fuel prices and land use. If
more land is taken away from food production and planted for biomass feedstock, food
prices are likely to go up. In an ideal situation, this could lead to reduced amounts of food
being wasted in homes, restaurants, institutions and also at the country level, for price
stabilization. In the worst case scenario, because of social inequalities, there could be a
potential for more people who would not have access to a sufficient daily caloric intake,
and this could lead to several societal problems. At the moment food prices are kept
artificially low because the environmental externalities are not included in the prices. The
polluter must pay principle would also mean that people would pay the real price for the
food they eat.
105
Economic realities mean that it is essential to consider the profitability of energy

crops relative to profit margins obtained from food crop production. Subsidies are
required in the renewable energy sector generally, and in biomass in particular. As it was
highlighted in the interview section, farmers are economic players and they make
economically rational decisions. If the profit margins are not sufficient, they will not start
to produce bioenergy grasses. People will have to accept that their tax money is used to
help farmers producing the energy needed by the society. The government will have to
change the way agricultural production is subsidized as a whole. A move away from crop
or area based subsidization towards retributions for environmental stewardship would not
only be positive for organic farmers, energy crop producers, and the environment, but
would also help the Danish society to reach international objectives in terms of
liberalisation of agricultural markets.
Developments in the renewable biomass energy sector will require massive
investments from the government other than subsidies. Society has to make the necessary
investments in the new structures while they are subsidised by relatively speaking,
cheap fossil fuels. Expensive infrastructures will have to be created for ethanol
production, pelletization of grasses, distribution of pellets, and to increase the efficiency
of power plants through pyrolysis. The society will have to change its energy
consumption patterns and move towards what could be referred to as appropriate exergy
use (use the right type of energy for a given work). This will only be achieved through
massive investment for education of the population, and diffusion of information at all
levels of the society.
Government also has to create agency structures with functional capability to work in
public-private sector partnerships between the various energy market stakeholders.
Consumer representatives need to be included. It is recognised that from the power plants
point of view, there must be long-term security of supply of suitably dried biomass
material. For farmers also storage facilities and transportation arrangements are part of
the infrastructure required. Equally important are forward contracts so that both
stakeholders have long-term certainty. Government support will be needed in the initial
stages to cover for potential economic losses of the companies and farms who take the
risk to innovate, and act as pioneers in the development of the new biomass industry.
In the commercial world, economic competitive advantage is essential for continued
high living standards. Prices of most products on the world market are influenced by
fossil fuel prices as fuel is involved in transportation, and often in processing or
production itself. Denmark will never accept to increase the energy bill of its enterprises
to a point where they loose competitivity in the globalised market. Choices to move
towards renewable energies and towards higher levels of taxation for fossil fuels will
have to involve several countries. Those choices will have to be made at the European
Union level or even in international institutions.
This short reflection about societal costs and benefits of the potential introduction of
perennial grasses in the agricultural landscape, and the adoption of strong renewable
bioenergy commitments by the Danish society is very incomplete. Numerous are the
106
issues that have not been touched because of lack of time and space. Nevertheless,
important headlines have been highlighted in the summary below.
SUMMARY
Benefits
Energy crop production will help to meet the objectives of Kyoto protocol:
o Reduction of CO2 emmisions
o Sustainability of energy production
Reduced dependency on fossil fuel imports could increase a countrys economic
and political autonomy
Cultural and socio-diversity will be enhanced with:
o Increased range of skills
o Increased linkages and dependencies between co-operators
o Increased employment opportunities in rural areas
o New role for farmers
Costs
Recognize the lack of sustainability of energy production and consumption, and

the importance of minimising the anthropogenically caused global warming
Develop acceptance of the idea that the society will have to pay more for
sustainable development and energy
Investment in education programs and diffusion of information is needed to make
society more concerned and responsible about environmental issues
The society will have to change the energy consumption pattern towards
appropriate exergy use
The polluter must pay principle should prevail, this could have impacts on the
cost of food and fuels among other things
Subsidies for energy crop production will be needed so that farmers start to
produce them
Government will have to invest into the biomass energy sector to create the
necessary infrastructures, and adapt agencies and extension services
Industrial countries should assume the responsibility of their action which have
negative environmental impacts affecting the whole planet
Changes to higher level of fossil fuel taxation will have to take place at an
international scale in order for single countries to remain competitive.
107
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Project
This project covered the most important aspects of perennial grass production as a
potential energy source for organic farmers in Denmark. It reflected on the agronomic
and processing issues; and on the ecological and social benefits that can be achieved.
Conversion from a predominately fossil fuel driven economic system to a system based
on renewable energies will involve changes in governmental policies, which will create
an environment for the development of research, education and the creation of marketing
infrastructures. These things can be achieved over time with a great deal of investments
and continued commitments. The project has shown that there is a potential for energy
production from perennial grasses in ecological agriculture in Denmark.
First, perennial rhizomatous grass (PRG) energy crop production will fulfil several of
the objectives and principles of organic farming identified at the beginning of the project.
The physiology of these plants makes them particularly suitable in marginal, or low
nutrient conditions. Recognising that the area of land available through set-aside schemes
is likely to increase substantially over the next few years in Denmark, and across the EU,
it is opportunistic now to consider perennial grass energy crops.
Second, we have shown that there are no major agronomic challenges that would
prevent the production of perennial grasses for energy in Denmark. The technology used
for the production is simple and conventional farm machinery can be used for most
operations. The techniques and methods have been tested and developed in different parts
of the world. Actual testing and data acquisition still needs to be done to adapt production
methods to Danish conditions.
Considering three crops investigated, miscanthus is the better known one in relation
to Danish conditions. The major problem with this crop in Denmark is related to overwintering. For reed canary grass most information came from Sweden and Finland. Thus
it is expected that there would be no barriers to its production in Denmark. Only simple
variety testing and yield evaluation need to be performed in Denmark. Switchgrass is a
new crop for Denmark and some crucial points will have to be answered by researchers
before farmers can start producing this crop. Those questions are mainly related to the
total degree days or heat units available in the growing season, the seed germination
response to Danish soil temperatures, and the varieties that could be used in Denmark.
It has been established that for organic farmers as well as conventional ones, a
delayed harvest system is the best option because it allows for reduced inputs, increased
biomass quality and increased environmental benefits.
The potential for energy crop production in ecological agriculture also comes from
the associated environmental benefits which are very important. Those include increased
soil organic matter levels which is highly desirable for organic farmers because of the
implications on soil fertility, nutrient and water availability, and enhanced microbial
108
activity in the soil. Risk of erosion is reduced since the ground is covered throughout the
year. Biodiversity at various scales can be enhanced by the introduction in the landscape
of perennial grass stands on (organic) farms. Benefits go beyond the farm borders. The
whole biosphere could benefit from these crops. Water quality can be improved with the
highly efficient nutrient use of perennial grasses through reduction of leaching. Finally,
emissions of CO2, NOx and acidifying gases in the atmosphere would be reduced with
substantial use of perennial grasses as an energy feedstock rather than fossil fuels. Also at
the field level CO2 is sequestered and NOx emissions are reduced compared to annual
cropping.
Our look at the processing possibilities of the crops has shown that a lot of options are
available: on-farm heating, pellet burning in houses, electricity generation in power
plants, fermentation into ethanol and biogas production. The farm level is probably
where energy production from perennial grasses is the most likely to be developed first
on organic farms through burning of grass bales in furnaces or pellet stoves. At a larger
scale, power plants in Denmark are well equipped to burn biomass and technologies exist
like pyrolysis to further increase their efficiency. The Danish society could benefit from
developing other processing outlets for the perennial rhizomatous grasses like ethanol
production. Combining ethanol with gasification seems to be a very promising option for
the future, and the Danish authorities are involved in that research project. It could reduce
the cost of ethanol production substantially in the near future.
Even though we found the potential is great for perennial grasses to help organic
farmers and the society to achieve their respective goals, this industry is not well
developed in Denmark. Interviews have been helpful in identifying the reasons why.
Farmers do not seem to be overly concerned by the idea of growing energy crops. The
poor response to our questionnaires can be interpreted as a sign of this lack of interest.
This is probably linked to the fact that information is not available for them in a concise
and clear format, through the advisory services. The economics of the situation also
keeps a lot of them from such production. Furthermore, a lack of awareness from the
society in general of the potential benefits related to the use of such crops is translated in
inappropriate policies from the government. The benefits will have to be recognized by
the institutions and monetized to encourage farmers to introduce perennial grasses in their
crop rotations.
It seems strange that the Danish government states ambitious goals in official
documents, but has not created the social and political infrastructures to achieve them.
Energy crops like perennial grasses seem to be mainly an option for the future. It has
been stated that energy grasses are not an economically viable option at the moment. But
if governments decided to value the environmental benefits related to perennial grass
based energy; if they started subsidy programs to support farmers; if, through their
extension services, they provided the necessary information to farmers; and if they
applied the polluter must pay principle whereby fossil fuel users and producers would
be taxed for the detrimental effects their practices have on the environment; they would
create an environment where the biomass industry could develop. Then perennial grass
production for energy feedstock could become an interesting option economically. These
109
changes will be necessary for the government to achieve the goals written into Energy 21.
It is expected that such a time will come, hence the relevance of this project in which we
attempted to prepare the arguments to promote perennial grasses production by
summarizing the ecosytemic and agronomical knowledge about three promising
perennial grasses for Denmark.
The change from a fossil fuel economy to one of integrated renewable energy
resources will require a consistent pattern of incremental developments over a long and
sustained period of time. Ambitious long-term commitments will require governments to
develop both long-term energy and resource plans. However, these do not work in
isolation from developing systems that are demand responsive to local need. The shift
will require integrated strategic thinking that is not evident in portfolio divisions such as
that between the Danish Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Shared projects for
research and co-joint extension efforts will be needed. Linkages need to be made between
all the stakeholders. These should reflect the new multi-functionality of the countryside
if serious efforts are to be made in developing a massive change towards renewable
energy from biomass. Forestry and farm systems have to be more integrated with waste
processing and energy use. Inventories of energy use, by energy type, are required with
sustainability targets on as local a basis as possible. Perennial grasses could engender a
more dynamic countryside. If energy is being produced locally, for local needs, then it is
possible to consider that more rural based enterprises will develop as it becomes more
possible to support the local infrastructure with its energy needs. Skill levels will increase
and farmers will have opportunities to have many more roles. In some areas tourism may
develop as the biodiversity leads to a more aesthetically attractive landscape with more
birds and wildlife.
Perennial rhizomatous grasses have a potential for energy production in Danish
ecological agriculture, and we have tried to identify the major challenges to the
development of this industry. The nutrient cycling, the fear of exporting nutrients, is
probably the major barrier to energy crop production in organic farming. The organic
movement has to decide what its position will be concerning the use of sewage sludge,
ashes, bone and blood meal for fertilization of non-food crops such as perennial
rhizomatous grasses (PRG). The benefits of re-introducing important nutrients into the
soil and the agricultural system will have to be evaluated with regards to public
perception. The risk of loosing consumer confidence is a major threat that the organic
movement will have to consider.
Also, if organic producers wish to be recognized for producing higher quality
organic biomass feedstock (mainly for power plants: biomass with lower contents of
aggressive components) in order to obtain price premiums, there would need to be
concerted guidelines about the production methods for perennial grasses. The organic
movement would have to establish strict standards for fertilization, cultivars, harvest, etc.
Moreover, the organic movement needs to have discussions about the possibility to
create an additional certification for Non-CO2 emitter - organic producers. As
mentioned in the interview section, it could create a division between the producers.
110
However it would be an extra incentive for farmers to adopt environmentally responsible

energy consumption. It could also be favorably perceived by a society which is very
much concerned by greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
About the nearness fundamental principle in organic farming, the challenge involves
determining whether or not it is acceptable in organics to export biomass to power plants
situated far from the farm and the end-point user.
About the precautionary principle, the introduction of new species into the agroecosystems will definitely impact the surrounding environment. The organic movement
will have to determine if perennial grasses should be seen as a threatening or a beneficial
addition to the landscape.
The project also sought to identify fields where more research is needed. Since energy
cropping is a relatively new area, especially for organic producers, there is a large amount
of research that could be useful. Breeding should be done for improvement of winter
hardiness in miscanthus, and for development (or testing) of appropriate high yielding
cultivars of reed canary grass and switchgrass in Denmark. Another objective of breeders
could be to achieve a higher quality of harvested grass biomass (reduced content of
undesirable components). During crop establishment, weed pressure remains a major
problem in organic production of bio-energy grasses. Research will have to be done
concerning the optimal way of preparing the soil (harrow, burn or smother weeds), to find
optimal plant densities, and optimal timing for seeding or planting.
Up until now, experiments have been done on a small scale. Larger scale, longer
lasting experiments will have to be performed. There may be a higher preponderance of
cereal related fungal diseases that could be transmitted from PRG to economically
important annual cereal crops in the future. This possibility of cross transmission needs to
be investigated further as well as an assessment of the risk of pest establishment in
Denmark of pests from the indigenous centres of the three grasses. Those long term
experiments will also be needed to evaluate the effect of long term management of
perennial grass stands in a low-input system. More research evaluating the environmental
impacts of PRG production on wildlife, soil carbon, and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in Denmark would be pertinent.
Moreover, there is potential for research about intercrops of legumes and grasses.
Some legume species have been proposed in the report, and the impact of intercropping
on yield, biomass quality, and nitrogen dynamics will have to be investigated. Mixtures
of grasses could be developed that would include native species and would be adapted for
heterogeneous ecological conditions in the fields. Machinery could be developed to
reduce harvest losses, and to increase the density of the bales thus reducing storage and
transportation costs. Finally about the processing of grasses, more research could be done
about on-farm heat and power generation systems, and about ethanol production (to
increase the efficiency, and to develop small scale systems).
111
Again, there is a potential for perennial grasses to be produced in organic agriculture,

but the benefits could be even more important if these grasses were introduced in
conventional systems. Those systems might even have more to gain than the ecological
agriculture ones. A reduction in pesticide use could be expected because pests and
diseases are not a major problem in perennial grass production. A reduction in the use of
energetically expensive fertilizers (with a high embodied energy) would also be a
positive feature of perennial grass production compared to arable crops. On some specific
points, for example erosion control, it has been pointed out that conventional systems
which enable no-till establishment of the crop could be even more beneficial than organic
ones (because of reliance on tillage). Perhaps the contribution of organic farmers could be
a role as pioneers in the introduction of perennial grasses in the farming systems and in
their use on-farm.
We have shown there are agronomic and environmental benefits and potential
benefits to the society with perennial grass production. We think that organic farmers and
the society could both benefit from these new crops in the organic farming systems. The
organic movement people will have to take a stance and determine if they consider it is
their role to produce energy based on these arguments and on the present economic
situation.
We strongly believe that a combination of organic and conventional production of
perennial grasses for energy feedstock is essential for the Danish society to achieve its
Kyoto objectives, and long term goals for sustainability. Furthermore, the use of biomass
for energy is not a cure-all solution, it will have to be combined with the various other
renewable energy sources in the future.
Methodology and learning

While going through the interviewing process, we observed that it was a good way to
obtain very valuable information. People involved in an industry or a sector are very well
placed to refer investigators to pertinent document sources, but are also themselves able
to provide unique, otherwise unavailable, insight and data. The approach chosen, where a
small number of very different people were interviewed, did not allow for scientific and
statistical analysis of the results; but it provided us with a broader base of comments. It
was more informative to do so, especially considering our purpose, which was to get an
idea, a broad overview of the various actors perceptions, in order to enrich our
reflections and understanding. It was never expected that firm conclusions could be
drawn about the different stakeholders, their role, their motivations, their limitations, etc.
The biggest challenge we were confronted with was probably the short lapse of time
available to contact potential interviewees, and prepare the interviews. The timing
during April and May was fairly bad, especially when trying to reach farmers.
Obtaining farmers perceptions is where we were the least successful. The farmers
contacted who were actually growing biomass like miscanthus did not take the time to
reply to our e-mail questionnaires. Furthermore, considering that size of farms, type of
112
production, education background, and general open-mindedness will greatly influence

the answers and the level of knowledge of each individual farmer, questionnaires would
probably have to be structured differently. They should be shorter, and questions should
be asked in a less open-ended way. Looking at the answers we realized that
questionnaires would have to be sent to a very large number of farmers if significant
conclusions were to be drawn from such a research process.
We found out that e-mail was a laborious and time consuming way to make contact
with people, and was also in some instances frustrating, especially when impatiently
waiting for an answer that will never come. Direct voice contact and immediate reply was
a great improvement as it allowed dynamic exchanges to evolve between the interviewer
and the interviewee. The video link facilities used were also found quite convenient
because they allowed for eye contact between the persons and for exchange of visual
information.
In future research projects, it is expected that the skills acquired will be used to obtain
useful primary information in a more direct and effective way.
113
REFERENCES
Agro Business Consultants Ltd. (2002): Agricultural Budgeting and Costing Book, 54th
edition, United Kingdom.
Allen C.L. and M.H. Entz (1994): Zero-tillage establishment of alfalfa and meadow
bromegrass as influenced by previous annual grain crop. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science. 74:521-529.
Andersen, E.S., P. Jespersgaard, O.G. stergaard (1995): DATABOG fyski keme. 6th
edition. F&K Forlaget. Kbenhavn N.
Anonym (1998): Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Development of a new crop
production system based on delayed harvesting and a system for its combined
processing to chemical pulp and biofuel powder [online]. Final report 1998.
BioMatNet. Available on Internet:
<URL: http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Air/F198.htm>
Anonym (2002): BioMatnet-Crops: reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), [online].
Available on Internet <URL:http://www.nf-2000.org/secure/Crops/S611.htm>
Bassam N. (1998): C3+C4 Plant Species as Energy Sources and their Potential Impact on
Enviroment and Climate. Renewable Energy. 15:205-210
Baxi (2003): Baxi, [online]. Baxi A/S. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://www.baxi.dk/showinfo.asp?intItemID=176>
Black C.C. (1971): Ecological implications of dividing plants into groups with distinct
photosynthetic production capacities. Advanced Ecological Resources. (7):87-114.In:
Samson R. and B. Mehdi. (1998): Strategies to Reduce the Ash Content in Perennial
Grasses. Report by Resource Efficient Agricultural Production-Canada.
Brjesson P. (1999): Environmental effects of energy crop cultivation in Sweden I:
Identification and quantification. Biomass and Bioenergy. 16:137-154.
Bransby D.I., S.B. McLaughlin and D.J. Parrish (1998): A review of Carbon and
Nitrogen Balances in Switchgrass Grown for Energy. Biomass and Bioenergy.
14(4):379-384.
Brown S.J. (1994): Bioenergy 94 Field Day: Biomass crops seen as an opportunity for
future energy markets. Sustainable Farming. 8(2), [online]. Available on Internet:
<URL: http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/FAll%2094%20D.htm>
114
Bullard M. and P. Metcalfe (2001): Estimating the energy requirements from productioin
of the perennial grasses miscanthus, switchgrass and reed canary grass. Sustainable
Energy Programmes, Department of Trade and Industry. ETSU B/U1/00645/REP
Burvall J. (1997): Influence of harvest time and soil type on fuel quality in reed canary
grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). Biomass and Bioenergy. 12(3):149154.
Cappelen J. and B.V. Jrgensen (2003): The climate of Denmark 2002. Published by
Danish Meteorological Institute, Ministry of Transport.
Christensen, B.H. and C. Nielsen (2002): Stort europisk energiprojekt med strk dansk
deltagelse. Note nr: 02-1853b, 3. December 2002. Elsam A/S.
Christian D. and A.R. Richie (2001): Evaluationg grasses as a long-term energy resource.
ETSU B/CR/00651/REP
Christian D., A.R. Riche and N.E. Yates (1999a): Evaluation of some herbaceous grasses
as biomass crops in southern England. Alternative crops for sustainable agriculture.
1999. European Commission. BioCity. Turku, Finland. pp. 58-69
Christian D., A.R. Richie and N.E. Yates (1999b): Monitoring growth and yield of crops
grown as biofuels. ETSU B/W2/00548/11/REP.
Christian D., W. Elbersen and I. Lewandowski (2000): Perennial rhizomatous grasses
overwiew In: Renewable energy and sustainable agriculture- The impact of perennial
grass research. Bioenergy workshop report. 2000. European Comission. Brussels
Clark R.B., S.K. Zeto, R.W. Zobel (1999): Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal isolate
effectiveness on growth and root colonization of Panicum virgatum in acidic soil.
Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 31:1757-1763.
Clifton-Brown J.C. and I. Lewandowski (2000): Water use efficiency and biomass
partitioning of three different Miscanthus genotypes with limited and unlimited water
supply. Annals of Botany. 86:191200.
Clifton-Brown J.C., I. Lewandowski, B. Andersson, G. Basch, D.G. Christian, J.
Bonderup-Kjeldsen, U. Jrgensen, J. Mortensen, A.B. Riche, K.U. Schwarz, K.
Tayebi and F. Teixeira (2001): Performance of 15 Miscanthus Genotypes at Five
Sites in Europe. Agronomy Journal. 93:10131019.
Dahlman R.C. and C.L. Kucera (1965): Root productivity and turnover in native prairie.
Ecology. 46:84-89.
Dalgaard T. (2003): Video-conference. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele
115
DARCOF (2000): Principles of Organic Faming. Danish Research Centre for Organic
Farming.
Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy (1996): Energy 21
Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy (1999): The Danish Nature and
Environment Policy. Summary Report. Miljbutikken, Copenhagen.
Department of natural resources (1998): Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea),
[online]. Wisconsin. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/invasive/factsheets/reed.htm>
Dewar R.C. and M.R. Cannell (1992): Carbon sequestration in the trees, products and
soils of forest plantations: an analysis using UK examples. Tree Physiology. 11:4971.
Ehrenshaft A. (1998): Biofuels from switchgrass: greener energy pastures. Report
prepared for US Department of Energys Office of Transportation Technologies and
Office of Utility Technologies. 4 p.
Energistyrelsen (2000): Reformopflgningsaftale, 22. marts 2000. [online], available on
Internet:URL:<http://www.ens.dk/graphics/ENS_Forsyning/Politik/Reformopfolgnin
g_22marts2000.doc>
Energistyrelsen (2001): Fokus p Biomasse. Scanprint A/S. Energistyrelsen,
Copenhagen.
Eppel-Hotz A., S. Jodl, W. Kuhn, K. Marzini and W. Mnzer (1998): Miscanthus: New
cultivations and results of research experiments for improving the establishment rate.
In: Lewandowski I, J.M.O. Scurlock, E. Lindvall, M. Christou (2003): The
development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in
the US and Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy. Article in Press.
Ercoli L., M. Mariotti, A. Masoni, E. Bonari (1999): Effect of irrigation and nitrogen
fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency of energy use in crop production of
Miscanthus. Field Crops Research. 63:3-11.
EUROPA (2000) A Green Paper: Energy Policy, Published by the Energy Section,
European Economic Community, Europa. (Publications).
Finansministeriet (2003): 1. Kyoto-protokollen, [online].Version 1, February 2003.
available on the internet:
<URL:http://www.fm.dk/1024/visPublikation.asp?artikelID=5381>
116
Fribourg H. A. and G. R. Wells (1992): Sustainable biomass production on marginal

agricultural land. In: Cundiff, J. S. (1992): Liquid Fuels from Renewable Resources.
American Society of Agricultural Engineeres, St. Jeseph, Michigan. Pp:17-26
Gauer E., C.F. Shaykewich, and E.H. Stobbe (1982): Soil temperature and soil water
under zero tillage in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 62:311-325.
Girouard P. (1994): Research updates: Biomass an emerging industry for agriculture.
Sustainable Farming. 8(2).
http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Summer%2094%20C.htm
Girouard P., J.C. Henning and R. Samson (1995): Economic assessment of short-rotation
forestry and switchgrass plantations for energy production in central Canada.
Proceedings of the Canadian Energy Plantation Workshop, Gananoque, Ontario, May
2-4.
Girouard P., B. Mehdi, R. Samson, P-A Blais (1999): Commercial production of
switchgrass in Eastern Ontario: A management guide. Research Report prepared by
REAP Canada and Research and Technology Transfer Section College dAlfred of
Guelf University. 11 p.
Giuliano W.M. and S.E. Daves (2002): Avian response to warm-season grass use in
pasture and hayfield management. Biological Conservation. 106:1-9.
Grydgaard M. (2003): E-mail interview. General Manager, Communications, Energi E2
A/S, Copenhagen.
Grubb M., A. Bauen, B. Schlamadinger, C. Azar and G. Berndes (2001): Carbon sinks
and biomass energy, [online]. Climate Strategies A Network of European Climate
Policy Researchers. Available on Internet: <URL: http://www.climatestrategies.org/carbonsinksbriefing%20paper.pdf>
Gylling M. (2001a): The Danish energy Crop Research and Development Project
results and conclusion. Danish Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Economics.
Frederiksberg.
Gylling M. (2001b): Rapport nr. 131, Energiafgrdeprogrammet. Statens Jordbrugs- og
fiskerikonomiske Institut, Copenhagen.
Hadders G. and R. Olsson (1997): Harvest of grass for combustion in late summer and in
spring. Biomass and Bioenergy. 12 (3):171-175.
Hannaway D.B., K.J. Hannaway, M. Panciera, S. Fransen, M. Hall, P. Shuler, S. Griffith,
and P. Hoagland (1998): Legumes: Summarize the distinctive physical characteristics
of legumes. National Forage and Grasslands Curriculum, project funded by the
USDA. http://forages.orst.edu/nfgc/topics.cfm?ID=102. Accessed 07/05/2003
117
Harris E.D. (2003): Photorespiration [online]. Texas A&M University. [Updated:

17.02.03]. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://www.tamu.edu/classes/bich/eharris/411/PowerPoint/LECT%2017%20P
hotoresp.ppt>
Heaton E., J. Clifton-Brown, T. Voigh, M. B. Jones, S. P. Long (2002): Biomass Crop as
a Source of Renewable Energy: European Experience with Miscanthus and Projection
for Illionas. University of Illinois. Departments of Crop Sciences and Plant Biology,
Hedestoker (2003): Brndeovne til trpiller, [online]. Hedestoker.dk onlinebutik.
[quoted 08.05.03]. Available online
<URL:http://www.hedestoker.dk/shop/category_id_107/braendeovne%20til%20traep
iller.htm>
Helt and Rancke-Madsen (1991): Gads Fagleksikon / Kemi. 2nd edition. G.E.C. Gads
Forlag, Kbenhavn.
Hintz R.L., K.J. Moore and A.B. Tarr (2002): Cropping systems research for biomass
energy production. A final report prepared for the Chariton Valley Resource
Conservation and Development, Inc. by Iowa State University, department of
Agronomy. 45 p.
Hsu F.H., C.J. Nelson, A.G Hatches (1985): Temperature effects on germination of
perennial warm season forage grasses. Crop Science. 25:215-220.
Hutchison M. (1990): Vegetation Management Guideline-Reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea). Natural Land Institute. 1(19), [online]. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/outreach/VMG/rcanarygr.html>
Hvelplund C. (2003): Phone interview. kologisk Rdgivning I/S, Jyderup.
Information Unit on Climate Change (1993): The Toronto and Ottawa conferences
and the "Law of the Atmosphere", [online]. The Information Unit on Climate
Changes [quoted 18.05.03]. Revised 1st may 1993. Available on internet:
<URL:http://unfccc.int/resource/ccsites/senegal/fact/fs215.htm>
Jannasch R., Y. Quan and R. Samson (2001a): A process and energy analysis of
pelletizing switchgrass, Final report. Prepared for Natural Resources Canada,
Alternative Energy Division. 21 p.
Jannasch R., R. Samson, A. de Maio and T. Helwig (2001b): Switchgrass fuel pellet
production in eastern Ontario: A market study. A small project initiative funded under
CANADAPT and The Agricultural Council of Ontario. REAP Canada. 61 p.
Jensen N.J. (2003): Phone interview. Elsam A/S. Fredericia
118
Johansson T.B. (1993): In: Burnham, L. (executive ed.), T. B. Johansson, H. Kelly, A. K.

N. Reddy, R. H. Williams (eds.) (1993). Renewable Energy, Soruces for Fuels and
Electricity.
Jrgensen U. (1997): Genotypic variation in dry matter accumulation and content of N, K
and Cl in Miscanthus in Denmark. Biomass and Bioenergy. 12:155169.
Jrgensen U. and E.F. Kristensen (1996): European Energy Crops Overview. Country
Report for Denmark
Jrgensen U. and J. Mortensen (2000): Reed Canary grass as en energy crop. In:
Jrgensen, U. (ed.) (2000): DJF report 29, Do energy crops have a future in
Denmark?. Danish institute of Agricultural Sciences. Research centre Foulum. pp.3042.
Jrgensen R.N., B.J. Jrgensen, N.E. Nielsen, M. Maag and A-M. Lind (1997): N2O
emission from energy crop fields of miscanthus giganteus and winter rye.
Atmospheric Environment. 31(18):2899-2904.
Joyce S. (2002) Climate Change, BNA/IER Volume 25 No.3 ISSN: 1522,4090
Katchmit M. (1998): Modifying the quality of Miscanthus x gigantheus biomass,
European Energy Crop Inter Network, BioBase
Katterer T., O. Andren and R. Petterson (1998): Growth and nitrogen dynamics of reed
canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) subjected to daily fertilization and irrigation
in the field. Field Crops Research. 55(1-2):153-164.
Knoef, H. A. M. (2003): Gasification of Biomass & Waste Practical Experience. I: III.
International Slovak Biomass Forum, February 3 rd 4th, 2003. BTG biomass
technology group. P.O.Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
Kristensen E.F. (1998): Danisch experience on harvesting of Miscanthus. European
Energy Crops Inter Network, BioBase
Kristensen E.F. (1999a): Storage of Winter Harvested Miscanthus. European Energy
Crops Inter Network, BioBase
Kristensen E.F. (1999b): Winter Harvesting of Miscanthus. European Energy Crops Inter
Network, BioBase
Kuemmel, B. (2002): CFE Systems An integrated analysis of the Economic and
energetical balances of a Combined Food and Energy (CFE) System. Taastrup and
Frederiksberg, Denmark.
119
Lampkin N. (1990): Organic Farming. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK. Pp. 13-52.
Landbrugsinfo (2000): 39 af 20/01-00 ; Bekendtgrelse om anvendelse af aske fra
forgasning og forbrnding af biomasse og biomasseaffald til jordbrugsforml,
bekendtgrelse nr. 39. [online]. Dansk Landbrugsrdgivning, Landscenteret. [quoted
06.05.03]. Available on internet:
<URL:http://www.lr.dk/lovogret/bek/bek20000039.htm>
Landstrm S. (1996): Production of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea L.). [online].
Excerpt from the Swedish part of the European Energy Crops Overview. Available on
Internet: <URL:http://www.njv.slu.se/eng/section/cropsc/ecreg.htm>
Landstrm S. (1999): Sustainability of reed canarygrass in cold climate. In: Alternative
crops for sustainable agriculture. 1999.European Commission, BioCity. Turku,
Finland. p. 194197.
Landstrm S. and R. Olsson (1997): Perennial rhizomatous grasses - Cultivation
experiments in reed canary grass for bioenergy in Sweden. Proc. of Int. Conf. on
Sustainable Agriculture for food, energy and Industry. Braunschweig, Germany
Lewandowski I. and A. Heinz (2003): Delayed harvest of miscanthus - influence on
biomass quantity and quality and environmental impacts of energy production.
European Journal of Agronomy. 19:4563.
Lewandowski I., J.C. Clifton-Brown, J.M.O. Scurlock and W. Huisman (2000):
Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass and Bioenergy.
19:209227.
Lewandowski and A. Kicherer (1997): Combustion quality of biomass: practical
relevance and experiments to modify the biomass quality of Miscanthusgiganteus.
European Journal of Agronomy. 6:163177.
Lewandowski I, J.M.O. Scurlock, E. Lindvall, M. Christou (2003): The development and
current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe.
Biomass and Bioenergy. Article in Press.
Lindvall E. (1997): Breeding reed canary grass as an energy or fibre crop by using local
collected wild populations. Proceedings of the XVIII International Grassland
Congress. Canada.
Long, S.P., L. Potter, M.J. Bingham and C.M. Striling (1990): An analysis of limitations
to the production of C4 perennials as lingo-cellulosic biomass crops, with reference to
trials in E. England. In Biomass for Energy and Industry, 5th European Conference,
Elsevier Applied Science, Edited by G. Grassi, G. Gosse, G. dos Santos, pp.235-241.
Luger E. (u): Energy crop species in Europe. BLT Weiselburg. Austria
120
Ma Z., C.W. Wood, D.I. Bransby (2000): Impact of soil management on root
characteristics of switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy. 18:105-112.
Ma Z., C.W. Wood, D.I. Bransby (2001): Impact of row spacing, nitrogen rate, and time
on carbon partitioning of switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy. 20:413-419.
Madakadze I.C., B.E Coulman, A.R. Mcelroy, K.A. Stewart and D.L. Smith (1998):
Bioresource Technology. 65:1-12.
McLaughlin S.B. and M.E. Walsh (1998): Evaluating environmental consequences of
producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy. Biomass and Bioenergy. 14(4):317-324.
McLaughlin S.B., R.Samson, D.Bransby, and A.Wiselogel (1996): Evaluating physical,
chemical and energetic properties of perennial grasses as biofuels. In Proc. Bioenergy
96 The seventh national bioenergy conference: Partnership to develop and apply
biomass technologies, September 15-20. Nashville, Tenessee
McLaughlin S, J. Bouton, D. Bransby, B. Conger, W. Ocumpaugh, D. Parrish, C.
Taliaferro, K. Vogel, and S. Wullschleger (1999): Developing switchgrass as a
bioenergy crop. P.282-299. In: J. Janick (ed.), Perspectives on new crops and new
uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA.
Monti A., P. Venturi, H.W. Elbersen (2001): Evaluation of the establishment of lowland
and upland switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) varieties under different tillage and
seedbed conditions in northern Italy. Soil and Tillage Research. 63:75-83.
Mortensen J., K.H. Nielsen and U. Jrgensen (1998): Nitrate leaching during
establishment of willow (Salix Viminalis) on two soil types and at two fertilization
levels. Biomass and Bioenergy. 15(6):457-466.
Murray L.D., L.B. Best, T.J. Jacobsen and M.L. Braster (2003): Potential effects on
grassland birds of converting marginal cropland to switchgrass biomass production.
Biomass and Bioenergy. Article in Press.
Neukirchen D., M. Himken, J. Lammel, U. Czypionka-Krause, H.-W. Olfs (1999):
Spatial and temporial distribution of the root system and root nutrient content of an
established Miscanthus crop. European Journal of Agronomy. 11:301309.
Nichloson J.W.G. and J.E Langille (1965): The comparative nutritional value of Spartina
pectinata and timothy at several stages of growth. Canadian Journal of Animal
Science 45:157-163.
Nielsen P. S. (2000): Valg af kedel til halmfyring, videnblad nr. 135. [online]. dkTEKNIK. [quoted 06.05.03]. Updated 03.05.00. Available on internet:
<URL:http://www.videncenter.dk/videnblade-dok/vb-135.htm >
121
Nielsen R.H. (2001): Nyt dansk energieventyr p vej. Ris News. Nr.2, June 2001. pp2830
Nikolaisen L. (Editor); C. Nielsen, M. G. Larsen, V. Nielsen, U. Zielke, J. K. Kristensen,
B. Holm-Christensen (1998): Straw for Energy Production. 2nd edition. Trjborg
Bogtryk. Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen.
Nixon P. and M. Bullard (2001): Planting and growing miscanthus, Deparment for
Environment, Food & Affairs
Odum H.T. (1986): Emergy in ecosystems. pp.337-369 in Enviromental Monographs
and Symposia, ed. Polunin, N., John Wiley.
Odum H.T. (1996): Enviromental Accounting, Emergy and Decision Making,
John Wiley
Olsson R. (2003): Production manual for reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea ),
[online]. Available on Internet: <URL:http://www.btk.slu.se/dokument/979.pdf>
Pakhala K. (1999): Cultivation methods of reed canary grass in Northern Europe,
[online]. Agricultural research Centre of Findland. European Energy Crops Inter
Network, BioBase. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://btgs1.ct.utwente.nl/eeci/archive/biobase/B10504.html>
Pakhala K.A., M. Eurola and A. Varhimo (1999): Effect of genotype and growing
conditions on fibre and mineral composition of reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea L.). Alternative crops for sustainable agriculture.1999. European
Commission. BioCity. Turku, Finland. p. 29-42
Pedersen S.M. and M. Gylling (1999): Economics of the combined reed canary grass
production chain for cellulose chips and biofuel-based on North European conditions.
Alternative crops for sustainable agriculture (1999): European Commission. BioCity.
Turku, Finland. p. 233-241
Porter J.R. (2003): personal communication. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural
University, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Taastrup
PowerMatic (2003): PowerMatic E.P. Stoker. [online]. PowerMatic E.P. Stoker
[quoted 08.05.03]. Updated May 2001. Available online
<URL:http://www.powermaticstoker.dk/Kontakt/KontaktKvittering/Udskriv/Powerm
atic.pdf>
Reynolds J.H., C.L. Walker, and M.J. Kirchner (2000): Nitrogen removal in switchgrass
biomass under two harvest systems. Biomass and Bioenergy. 19:281-286.
122
Samson R. (1991a): Switchgrass : a living solar battery for the prairies. Sustainable
Farming. 5(3). http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Fall%2091%20L.htm
Samson R. (1991b): Ethanol and sustainable development. Sustainable Farming. 5(4).
http://eap.mcgill.ca/MagRack/SF/Winter%2091%20M.htm
Samson R. and J.A. Omielan (1998): Switchgrass: a potential biomass energy crop for
ethanol production. Report by Resource Efficient Agricultural Production-Canada.
8 p.
Samson R., P. Duxbury, M. Drisdelle and C. Lapointe (2000): Assessment of Pelletized
Biofuels. Report by Resource Efficient Agricultural Production-Canada. 31 p.
Samson R., P. Girouard, J.A. Omielan, and J. Henning (1993): Integrated production of
warm season grasses and agroforestry for low cost biomasss production. Report by
Resource Efficient Agricultural Production-Canada. 15 p.
Samson R. and B. Mehdi (1998): Strategies to Reduce the Ash Content in Perennial
Grasses. Report by Resource Efficient Agricultural Production-Canada.
Sanderson M. A., R.P. Egg and A.E. Wiselogel (1997): Biomass losses during harvest
and storage of switchgrass. Biomass and Bioenergy. 12(2):107-114.
Saupe, S.G. (2000): AUTOTROPHISM. [online]. Biology Department, College of St.
Benedict/St. John's University. [quoted 18.05.03]. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol116/photo.htm>
Scholz, V. and R. Ellerbrock (2002): The growth productivity, and environmental
impacts of the cultivation of energy crop on sandy soil in Germany. Biomass and
Bioenergy 20 (2002). Pp81-92.
Schwarz Kai-Uwe, W. Munzer, J.B. Kjeldsen, and R. Judge (1999): Establisment of
Miscanthus. European Energy Crops Inter Network, BioBase
Scurlock J. M. O. (1999): Miscanthus: A Review of European Experience with a Novel
Energy Crop, Environmental Science Division, Publication No. 4845
Serup H. (Editor), H. Falster, C. Gamborg, C. Gundersen, L. Hansen, N. Heding, H. H.
Jakobsen, P. Kofman, L. Nikolaisen, I. M. Thomsen (1999): Wood for Energy
Production. 2nd edition. Trjborg Bogtryk. Danish Energy Agency, Copenhagen.
Sktt T. and Hansen M. T. (2000): Danish Biomass Solutions - reliable and efficient. CS
Grafisk. Centre for Biomass Technology, The Danish Energy Authority, Copenhagen.
123
Sladden S.E., D.I. Bransby, G.E. Aiken (1991): Biomass yield, composition and
production costs for eight switchgrass varieties in Alabama. Biomass and Bioenergy.
1:119-122.
Sladden S.E., D.I. Bransby, D.D. Kee, P. Nepal (1995): The effects of row spacing and
nitrogen fertilization on biomass production of switchgrass in Alabam. In:
Lewandowski I, J.M.O. Scurlock, E. Lindvall, M. Christou (2003): The development
and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and
Europe. Biomass and Bioenergy. Article in Press.
Sommer S. (2003): Senior scientist at the Danish Department of Agricultural
Engeneering. Research Centre Bygholm. Personnal communication.
Stjernquist I. (1994): An integrated environmental analysis of short-rotation forests as a
biomass source. Biomass and Bioenergy. 6:3-10
Stroup J.A., M.A Sanderson, J.P. Muir, M.J. McFarland and R.L. Reed (2003):
Comparison of growth and performances in upland and lowland switchgrass types to
water and nitrogen stress. Bioresource Technology. 86:65-72.
Suokannas A. (1999): The balling methods in reed canary grass harvesting
In : Alternative crops for sustainable agriculture.1999. European Commission. BioCity.
Turku, Finland. p. 317
The Scottish Agricultural College (U): SAC crop clinic, Ergot. Available online
<URL:http://www.sac.ac.uk/cropsci/external/cropclinic/PDW/Identification/Ergot.asp
Tjepkema J. (1995): Nitrogenase activity in the rhizosphere of Panicum virgatum. Soil
Biology and Biochemistry. 7:179-180
Turhollow A.F., J.H. Cushman, J.W. Johnston (1988): Herbaceous Energy Crops
Program: Annual Progress Report for FY, Report ORNL-6639, 1990, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6285, 76 p.
United Nations (1997): Kyoto Protocol to the united Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, [online]. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Changes. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf>
UK Met Office (2003): 1961-90 Station Averages Rothamsted.
<URL:http://www.meto.govt.uk/climate/uk/averages/sites/42.html>
Vasarainen A., A. Hannukkala and J. Grahn (1999): Pests and diseases of reed canary
grass, Phalaris arundinacea L. In : Alternative crops for sustainable agriculture.1999.
European Commission. BioCity. Turku, Finland. p. 294-301
124
Venendaal R., U. Jorgensen and C.A. Forsters (1997): European energy crops: a
synthesis. Biomass and Bioenergy. 13(3):147-185.
Vesthammer C. (2003): Personnal communication
Vogel K.P., H.J. Gorz, and F.A. Haskins (1989): Breeding grasses for the future. Crop
Science. CSSA special publication. 15.
Vvs-branchen (2003): Biogasanlg. [online]. Vvs-branchens Uddannelsesnvn. [quoted
10.05.03]. Updated 02.05.03. Available online
<URL:http://www.vvsu.dk/biogas1.htm >
Walsh M. (1998): Miscanthus Harvesting Options, European Energy Crops Inter
Network, BioBase
Walworth J. L. (1998): Soil fertility basics. Crop production and soil management series.
FGV-00242A. Alaska cooperative extension. p. 5, [online]. Available on Internet:
<URL:http://www.uaf.edu/coop-ext/publications/ freepubs/FGV-00242A.pdf>
Water and Environment Supply Act (1998): Danish Ministry of Energy and the
Environment.
Wiborg, T. (2001): konomi i biobrndsler. LandbrugsInfo, Landboforeningernes
Landskontor for Driftskonomi, Landbrugets Rdgivningscenter.
Wolfe D.D. and D.A Fiske (1995): Planting and managing switchgrass for forage,
wildlife, and conservation. Extension agronomist, Forages. Virginia Tech Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University. Publication 418-013.
Wright L. (1994): Production technology status of woody and herbaceous crops. Biomass
and Bioenergy. 6(3)191-209.
Wright N.A. (1988): Screening of herbaceous species for energy crops on wet soils in
Ohio. Proceedings of First National Symposium New Crops Research Development
and Economics. Timber Press, Oregon. Pp263-267
Zan C.S., J.W Fyles, P. Girouard and R.A. Samson (2001): Carbon sequestration in
perennial bioenergy, annual corn and uncultivated systems in southern Quebec.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 86:135-144.
125
126

Grasses As Energy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grasses As Energy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grasses As Energy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Potential for Perennial Grasses as Energy

Crops in Organic Agriculture

The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University

The Potential for Perennial Grasses as Energy

To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the

Without the sun, no shadows

Perennial Grasses as Energy Crops.............................................................................. 22

2.2.2. Impacts on Biodiversity...................................................................................... 63

Societal, Economical and Political Considerations..................................................... 99

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 105

: Units and Conversion Figures

Course and Project

Dressing a portrait of the present situation of the biomass industry in Denmark

1.1.1. Biomass what is it?

1.1.2. Biomass categories

particular type of biological material (biostock) introduced. In the absence of oxygen,

Short Rotation Coppice

Low productivity because of low water use efficiency compared to C4 grasses

availability of information on the topic. Research is only starting about fermentation of

Environmental and social gains from sustainable energy production

1.1.3. How Do Plants Accumulate Energy - Photosynthesis

Light energy is used in the process of

1.1.3.1. Differences between C3 and C4 Plants

source: Harris, 2003

C4 plants (such as maize, sorghum (Sorghum biocolor), sugarcane (Saccharum

Source: Porter (2003)

avoid the photorespiratory loss of carbon

1.1.4. Properties of Biomass

Table 2: Energy Densities in Different Fuels

Source: Andersen et al. (1995)

1.1.4.2. Moisture Content

1.1.5. Energy, Exergy, Emergy

1.2. Ecological agriculture concepts

Another precept of ecological agriculture is that of the Precautionary Principle. In

Biodiversity is an important part of agroecological systems. Maximum system gains

1.2.2. Why Perennial Grasses in Ecological Agriculture?

A general overview of renewable energies has presented the important role of

This has been complemented with information on photosynthesis showing the

The differences between C3 and C4 plants were highlighted

Photosynthetic efficiency should theoretically be higher for C3 plants in Denmark

C4 plants are associated with reduced photorespiration, as well as higher nitrogen

Important biomass characteristics are energy density and moisture content

No study of this kind would be complete without reminding readers of the

Other basics of ecological agriculture were also briefly described: biodiversity,

Perennial Grasses as Energy Crops

Table 3: Comparison of the Advantages of Each Perennial Grass Crop Chosen

Reed canary grass

Source: Lewandowski et al., 2003.

2.1. Production of Perennial Grasses

2.1.1. Characteristics of The Plants

Figure 5: Graphic Showing Miscanthus

M.giganteus , as a triploid hybrid, is

Figure 6: Reed canary grass

This large, coarse C3 grass has erect,

Resources, Wisconcin (1998)

In commercial production RCG is expected to be productive for 10-15 years without

RCG is well adapted to marginal soils, which is an advantage, because we estimate

2.1.1.3. Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.)