09.01.2013 Views

Proceedings World Bioenergy 2010

Proceedings World Bioenergy 2010

Proceedings World Bioenergy 2010

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 1: Amount of biomass and botanical composition<br />

in August 2009 in small plots 50 x 50 cm.<br />

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<br />

There were significant differences in legume biomass<br />

between the species mixtures (Figure 1). Alsike clover<br />

was the most productive sown legume, followed by red<br />

clover. Goats rue was a slow starter and it formed a low<br />

but healthy undergrowth.<br />

The nitrogen fixation as determined by the difference<br />

method varied very much between plots and differences<br />

between legumes were not significant. However there<br />

was significantly less N-fixation, 28 kg N/ha, with full Nfertilization<br />

compared to half N-fertilization, 39 kg N/ha.<br />

The low nitrogen fixation rate was probably due to strong<br />

competition from the very dense reed canary grass crop.<br />

It was not possible to use the 15 N natural abundance<br />

method to determine the N-fixation since the difference<br />

in 15 N natural abundance in reed canary grass and<br />

legumes was too small.<br />

The amount of reed canary grass was higher with the<br />

higher N-fertilization level (Figure 1). However the<br />

difference was not significant. There were no significant<br />

differences between the treatment with sewage sludge<br />

and the corresponding treatment without sludge.<br />

Establishment of reed canary grass undersown in<br />

barley did not work well. The harvest was less than half<br />

of the other species mixtures. Also there were more<br />

weeds in the barley treatment. The reason is probably that<br />

the barley was harvested with a stubble height of only 7<br />

cm in early September 2008 and the reed canary grass<br />

probably was not able to grow enough rhizomes before<br />

winter to get a good spring growth 2009.<br />

Both in October 2009 and in May <strong>2010</strong>, the harvest<br />

of the larger plots showed the same pattern as the smaller<br />

plots, but due to the smaller variation there was<br />

significantly more biomass with full N-fertilization. The<br />

biomass harvest in spring was 64 % of the biomass<br />

harvest in autumn, and there were no significant<br />

differences in winter losses between treatments.<br />

Three similar experiments have also been established<br />

96 world bioenergy <strong>2010</strong><br />

in other parts of Sweden. In two of these, there have been<br />

large problems with weeds: white clover in one site and<br />

couch grass in the other site. More information is given in<br />

a recent report [4].<br />

4 ECONOMICS AND CONCLUSIONS<br />

An economic calculation showed that the<br />

establishment costs (the first two growing seasons) can<br />

be lowered by intercropping with red clover (Table 1).<br />

However it is also involves more risks, related to weeds,<br />

and cannot be recommended on fallow soil with a large<br />

seed bank of weeds. Weed management with glyphosate<br />

(Roundup) the year before sowing and Basagran SG<br />

when the legumes have three full leaves, is recommended<br />

in order to decrease the total competition of weeds.<br />

Table 1: Establishment costs for reed canary grass. To<br />

calculate the cost per MWh the establishment cost were<br />

spread over 10 harvesting years with 5000 kg biomass<br />

harvest/ ha and year and 4,2 MWh/ton field dry material.<br />

RCG + red clover RCG<br />

Half fertilization Full fertilization<br />

SEK/ha SEK/ha<br />

Seeds 1105 825<br />

Fertilizer 2000 4000<br />

Herbicides 500 250<br />

Other 300 300<br />

Plowing 1000 1000<br />

Harrowing 675 675<br />

Seeding<br />

Spreading<br />

200 200<br />

of fertilizer<br />

Application<br />

825 825<br />

of herbicide 300 300<br />

Sum 6905 8375<br />

Cost/MWh 32.9 39.9

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!