Integrated Biomass-Derived Power Generation in the Lachlan Shire

JUNE 2014 RIRDC Publication No. 14/052

by John Larkin and Bernard McMullen

June 2014

RIRDC Publication No 14/052 RIRDC Project No PRJ-005910

ISBN 978-1-74254-668-1 ISSN 1440-6845

Integrated biomass-derived power generation in the Lachlan Shire Publication No. 14/052 Project No. PRJ-005910

The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances.

While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication.

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), the authors or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth of Australia, RIRDC, the authors or contributors.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views in this publication.

This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the RIRDC Publications Manager on phone 02 6271 4165.

Researcher Contact Details

John Larkin Aurora Research 37 Erskine Street DUBBO NSW 2830

Phone: 02 6885 5558 Fax: 02 6885 5556 Email: [email protected]

In submitting this report, the researcher has agreed to RIRDC publishing this material in its edited form.

RIRDC Contact Details

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 2, 15 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600

PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604

Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Email: [email protected]. Web: http://www.rirdc.gov.au

Electronically published by RIRDC in June 2014 Print-on-demand by Union Offset Printing, Canberra at www.rirdc.gov.au or phone 1300 634 313

Foreword

Australian rural industries make a significant contribution to the Australian economy, and the regional communities that service those industries. Much research has been undertaken to identify new and emerging rural industries which could bring diversification to traditional farming areas and provide scope for new industry creation.

This report provides farmers with the information to engage in a new biomass production industry, based on integrated Mallee tree cropping, which could provide diversification from farmer’s traditional grain and grazing operations. The establishment of any such new biomass industry may also provide for significant local value-adding opportunities, which can contribute to providing community and regional sustainability.

All new industries need to go through a development and engagement process. This report seeks to work with farmers and key stakeholders, by providing a feasibility assessment, on the potential to aggregate farmers to support a sustainable energy tree supply chain for integrated biomass-derived power generation and other potential uses.

Information on what is required to create a biomass production industry in the Lachlan and surrounding shires, and how best to engage with farmers, and the broader community, to create the economies of scale to support a sustainable energy tree supply chain, is provided.

This report is an addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 2000 research publications and it forms part of our Bioenergy, Bioproducts and Energy (BBE) RD&E Program, which aims to provide information to the primary industries sector about the opportunities to engage in the bioenergy supply chain as a feedstock producer.

Most of RIRDC’s publications are available for viewing, free downloading or purchasing online at www.rirdc.gov.au. Purchases can also be made by phoning 1300 634 313.

Craig Burns Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation

iii

About the Authors

John Larkin is the CEO of Aurora Research and Development Pty Limited and, over the last twenty years, has been involved in researching and developing sustainable agribusiness models and community regional development strategies. During the last 12 years, John has been developing the Demand Farming System which aims to assist farmers in moving closer to supply chains and providing diversification from their traditional farming systems. Mallee tree cropping was identified as one of those diversification opportunities for integration into lower rainfall wheat and grazing areas in the Central West of NSW.

Bernard McMullen is a Senior Extension Officer with the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI), and has been involved in regional industry development over the past 15 years. Bernard has written a number of technical documents and papers on farming systems, soils, industry protocols and farming development practices. Over the last eight years, Bernard has been involved in the development and research of the potential for biomass in NSW.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Amir Abadi (Future Farm Industries CRC), Dan Richardson (Integrated Tree Services), David Cliffe (Narromine Transplants), Delta Electricity, Erik Schmidt (University of Southern Queensland), Forbes Shire Council, Ian Bennett (Integrated Tree Services), Jane Hogan (NSW Department of Primary Industries), John Bartle (Future Farm Industries CRC), Lachlan Shire Council, Maryanne Knight (Aurora Research), Lyn Penson (Aurora Research), Matthew Warnken (Corporate Carbon), Richard Sulman (BioSystems Engineering Australia) and Rick Giles (Future Farm Industries CRC).

We also wish to thank the farmers who participated in the Trial: Daniel Cooper, Scott Darcy, John Duff, Chris Jones, Duncan and Warren Lander, James Maslin, John Ridley and Gavin Tom.

Contents

Foreword ...... iii

About the Authors ...... iv

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Executive Summary ...... vii

Introduction ...... 1

Objectives ...... 2

Methodology ...... 3

The Mallee Opportunity ...... 4

The Western Australian Mallee experience ...... 4 Delta Electricity trial sites in New South Wales ...... 5 Delta Electricity Trial Results ...... 5 Suitability of the Lachlan Shire for Biomass Feedstock Supply ...... 8

Climate ...... 8 Soils ...... 9 Infrastructure ...... 10 Community and commercial support ...... 10

Farmer Engagement ...... 11 Biomass Production ...... 14 Species selection and cultivation ...... 14 Nursery ...... 16 Mallee system design ...... 17 Planting design: rules-of-thumb of field performance ...... 18 Water ...... 18 Planting practice (preparation, technique, timing, spacing/density) ...... 19 Integration of Mallee on farms ...... 22 Fence line belt planting ...... 22 Alley belt planting ...... 23 Crop management (pests and disease, nutrition, grazing/fencing) ...... 24

Harvest, Transport and Processing ...... 25 Harvest ...... 25 Harvest regime and coppice management ...... 25 Frequency of harvest ...... 25 Evolution of harvest mechanisation ...... 28 Transport ...... 34 Containers or bins ...... 34 Landings and bin or container size ...... 35 Number of haul-outs per harvester ...... 35

Processing options ...... 37

Planning and Information Management ...... 38 Compatibility with precision agriculture, farm water supply and existing farm infrastructure ...... 38

Markets and Collateral Benefits ...... 39

Sequestration of carbon in Mallee trees ...... 39 Carbon content in Mallee trees ...... 39 Above ground biomass ...... 40 Below ground biomass ...... 41 Calculating the carbon content of Mallee stands ...... 41 Combinations of measurement and model ...... 42

Economic Analysis ...... 44

Tree establishment costs ...... 44 Yield ...... 44 Yield estimation ...... 44 Economic analysis outputs ...... 45 Components of the delivered price of biomass ...... 46 Scenarios and sensitivity analysis for handling uncertainties ...... 47 Results: an Integrated Biomass Feedstock Supply Industry in the Lachlan Shire ...... 49

Conceptual design of production systems for the project area ...... 50 Implications ...... 51 Recommendations ...... 53 Appendices ...... 54

Appendix A ...... 55 Appendix B ...... 67 References ...... 78

Tables

Table 1: WA Mallee plantings ...... 15

Table 2: Partitioning of biomass to tree components under the Australian National Inventory ...... 40

Table 3: Above ground biomass proportions and carbon content under the Australian National Inventory ...... 41

Table 4: Below ground biomass proportions and carbon content under the Australian National Inventory ...... 41

Figures

Figure 1: Comparison of growth over trial farms ...... 7

Figure 2: BOM rainfall comparison - Condobolin Ag Research Station/Narrogin State Farm ...... 9

Figure 3: Target area showing suitable red soil types in the Lachlan and surrounding shires ...... 10

Figure 4: E. polybractea (left) and E. loxophleba ssp lissophloia planted in 2004 on Chris Jones’ property ‘Brotherony’, 30km west of Condobolin, NSW ...... 16

Figure 5: Rainfall and Mallee root zone diagram ...... 19

Figure 6: Mallee planting density and yield for belts aged 6 - 9 years ...... 20

Figure 7: 2 row belt planting configuration with competition zone ...... 21

Figure 8: Integration of Mallee on farms ...... 22

Figure 9: Fence line belt planting example for a 49 hectare paddock ...... 23

Figure 10: Alley planting example on 49 hectare paddock ...... 24

Figure 11: Frequency of harvest example - early wheat planting ...... 25

Figure 12: Harvesting and transport of Mallee chips ...... 26

Figure 13: Coppiced harvested trees beside unharvested trees ...... 26

Figure 14: Tree to the left harvested 14 months ago. Background - unharvested Mallee 6 years of age and to the right - mallee which was harvested 6 months ago ...... 27

Figure 15: Competition zone example ...... 27

Figure 16: Harvest images from Central West NSW (2011) ...... 30

Figure 17: Mallee ready for first harvest, Central West NSW (2011) ...... 30

Figure 18: After harvest – chips beside stump left for coppice re-growth ...... 30

Figure 19: Bio Baler ...... 31

vii

Figure 20: Harvester used by the Oil Mallee Company ...... 32

Figure 21: Harvesting willow into bales (Canada) ...... 33

Figure 22: Willow bales (Canada) ...... 33

Figure 23: Willow harvest (Canada) ...... 34

Figure 24: 40 ha potential processing site on outskirts of Condobolin with access to road and rail ... 36

Figure 25: 40 ha potential site at Condobolin ...... 36

Figure 26: Projected above and below ground biomass production for harvested Mallee stands in the project area ...... 43

viii

Executive Summary

What the report is about

The diversification of agriculture with woody crops for energy production has the potential to increase options for rural economies and provide renewable energy and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

This report provides a feasibility assessment on the potential to aggregate sufficient farmers and farm area within the Lachlan and surrounding shires to support a sustainable energy tree supply chain for integrated biomass-derived power generation, and other potential uses.

The integration of the project occurs from the farmgate, through an aggregated supply chain, to deliver biomass for processing to a central point to produce localised electricity generation, and other potential products. The integrated approach helps to contain costs (particularly transport), to support the business case by value adding the biomass at a local level.

This assessment covers the identification of suitable land areas for planting of energy crops to Mallee eucalypt, and the benefits and barriers for farmer participation in an aggregated supply chain. Italso assesses the availability of suitable resources, infrastructure and management to support the establishment of a biomass industry in the Lachlan and surrounding shires.

Who is the report targeted at?

This report is targeted at parties interested in a sustainable biomass-derived power supply chain, including:

• regional farmers

• tree nurseries

• biomass processors.

It will be of interest to the range of beneficiaries of an integrated biomass industry including:

• local government and associated regional towns and villages

• design, engineering and construction providers

• transport and logistics providers

• associated professional personnel such as agronomists, researchers, carbon accountants

• technology and manufacturing suppliers.

Where are the relevant industries located in Australia?

In the Western Australian wheat belt, 15,000 hectares of Mallee trees have been integrated into the agricultural landscape. Initially planted for salinity control, these crops are now being successfully developed as feedstock for biomass supply chains.

At present, the only other commercial Mallee crops are small-scale establishments for eucalyptus oil production at West Wyalong in New South Wales and Bendigo in Victoria (Davis, 2002).

The findings of this assessment are relevant to areas of Western Australia with existing Mallee crops, as well as areas in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland where Mallee trees can be integrated into present agricultural systems and developed as biomass feedstock for energy supply chains.

Background

There has been extensive research on associated technologies for Mallee Tree crops such as harvesting and transport logistics, particularly in Western Australia. A need was recognised for a large area feedstock supply chain to be developed to meet potential end use requirements.

A complete biomass supply chain assessment has previously been undertaken and development, from farm to processing of pellets and delivery for co-firing for Delta Electricity, which has provided significant insight into the development of a large supply chain for a specific end user. Eleven trial sites have also been successfully established on behalf of Delta Electricity, across the central west New South Wales Mallee target zone, with research continuing.

Corporate Carbon have been engaged with a number of potential end users to understand how a biomass supply chain would need to be developed, to satisfy any potential future developments that could be considered using Mallee-eucalypt as an energy fuel source. An approved carbon credit model is also being developed that has the potential to further add value to these energy tree crops for this project, or any other potential project.

Aims/objectives

The main objective was to provide a sustainable model for integrated biomass-derived power generation, structured around:

• Tree planting for biomass supply, including identification of suitable land mass based on current land use, soils, climate, current infrastructure (including road) and logistics

• Engagement with potential farmer participants and decision makers, clarifying psychometrics for integration into existing agricultural enterprises

• Recommend land preparation (ripping and mounding) and planting protocols

• Examination of mechanical tree planting and water /polymer injection technology

• Recommend best management practice including weed control

• Examination of biomass harvesting and feedstock preparation, including in-field transport and handling to maximise operating efficiency, harvesting technology for proposed Mallee plantings and optimised transport logistics.

The project also reviewed collateral benefits, including carbon sequestration and environmental biodiversity such as shelter belts and wind breaks.

In summary, this study identified, within the Lachlan and surrounding shires, areas suitable for growing energy tree crops able to be incorporated in existing farming systems. These energy tree crops could provide a low risk 'drought tolerant' income stream for under-utilised areas and low productivity land, to service as a supply base for bioenergy feedstock to establish a nodal power generation plant and other potential users.

Methods used

Suitability of the Lachlan Shire was determined by the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) from their historical data, which established the Mallee species as being endemic to the region.

A media campaign was undertaken to publicise the project, and create the initial farmer interest. Community information booths were made available at local shows and energy forums across the region. Partnering with Lachlan and surrounding shires, an extensive mail-out to farmers inviting them to field days at the Mallee field trial sites was undertaken. Four field days were organised and held.

A number of focus groups (three) and farm visits (four) to interested farmers (in the target zone) who could not attend the field days were conducted to further establish the farmer interest and land suitability.

Production protocols were assessed by the NSW DPI and best practices determined by the Mallee experience in Western Australia. The planting trials were conducted in New South Wales for Delta Electricity.

Assessment of harvesting options was undertaken where harvesting trials were undertaken at ‘Brotherony’, Condobolin, New South Wales, using an Australian-developed machine. Trials were also observed in Canada, using alternative technologies to those in Australia.

Market research to identify potential end users was undertaken and those users were interviewed, either by face to face or phone semi-depth interviews.

Economic analysis was undertaken by the NSW DPI, Future Farm Industries and CRC (FFI CRC).

Results/key findings

• The broad range of land holdings and various farming systems within the project area lends itself to a combination of planting methodologies

• The land in the Lachlan and surrounding shires is suitable for the establishment of Mallee trees to develop a biomass supply chain

• The estimated growth rates (based on WA and NSW data) will be in the order of 18 g/t per planted ha per year

• The road infrastructure and location provides for transport and logistics efficiencies

• 175 farmers across five local government areas of NSW, have indicated a willingness to be involved in the creation of a biomass supply chain, by integrating Mallee trees within their agricultural systems

• There are suitable areas for the establishment of manufacturing/processing plants

• There is opportunity to aggregate farmers across the region to provide feedstock for a supply chain

• Existing contractor capacity for crop establishment, tree supply and in-field management and silviculture has been established

• Farmers require further information with regard to the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) and how above and below carbon sequestration and carbon accounting operates

• Decision psychometrics and econometrics for farmers to consider growing energy tree crops as part of their farming systems have been established

• A number of end uses of Mallee biomass can be contemplated. For example, supplying wood pellets or torrefied fraction to electricity generators, stand-alone biomass generation, steel manufacturing and liquid fuel manufacturing

• Carbon sequestration and accounting could add to the viability of energy tree crops as part of the farming system (subject to an approved methodology)

• Specialised technology and systems are available to undertake large scale plantings of Mallee

• There is a high level of support from local government to support the establishment of a new industry in the region and broaden the agricultural base

• There is interest from potential project partners and funders to explore public-private partnerships for stand-alone biomass-derived power generation and other biomass developments

• Cropping of Mallee trees after mechanical harvesting on trial sites was completed successfully.

Implications for relevant stakeholders

Industry

The advent of a biomass industry could complement farming systems in the inland grain belt regions.

Income from harvested biomass plus carbon credits has the opportunity to offer a reliable return.

Farmers could benefit from the collateral benefits of wind breaks and stock shelter belts. In some instances non-farmed land may be suitable for tree belts, thus improving farm productivity.

Potential end users, for example, electricity generators, benefit by having ongoing access to feedstock from a renewable source that can provide base load energy.

Communities

The development of a biomass industry may assist regional service providers, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, transporters and labour services, to provide flow-on benefits to towns and villages.

Regional infrastructure could be developed with significant regional labour being required for both on- farm crop establishment and processing.

Opportunities could develop for skilled training providers, as well as professional opportunities in processing areas, specialised engineering and agronomy.

Policy makers

This project is relevant to federal, state and local government when addressing carbon sequestration, sustainable farming practices and encouraging regional development.

Other

This project could provide a template for other grain growing regions in Australia looking at diversifying farm income opportunities and supporting regional development.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are targeted at farmers, communities and local government to assist in supporting the establishment of a future biomass supply chain:

• Continue discussions with existing and potential new investors and end users

xii

• Determine project management systems by liaising with interested parties to optimise potential project outcomes

• Continue to monitor and record findings from the Delta Electricity trial

• Continue to compare harvesting methodologies, for example, bailer versus continuous flow harvesting systems and consequent handling methods

• Undertake a comparison of existing and potential mechanical planting systems including polymer/water injection

• Upon confirmation of investment, formalise the growing areas including full site evaluations

• Identify and undertake an assessment of commercially proven biomass conversion technologies to be able to satisfy potential investor project due diligence

• Undertake an evaluation of emerging processing and enhancement technologies

• Continue communication/liaison with all interested parties and researchers regarding transport and handling logistics

• Continue investment in harvesting technology to maximise harvesting rates and efficiencies

• Quantify the collateral benefits of biodiversity and environmental impacts in existing regional farming systems, for example, effective wind breaks on crop yields, shelter belts and livestock benefits

• Develop a full business case for assessment by potential funding partners

• Develop public-private partnership options for project commercialisation.

xiii

Introduction

This project aimed to establish whether there was enough farmer interest to create a viable Mallee supply chain for a number of end uses, including power generation and liquid fuel manufacturing in the Lachlan and surrounding shires.

While there has been extensive research on the associated technologies such as harvesting and transport logistics, particularly in Western Australia, a need was recognised to develop a large area Mallee feedstock supply chain system to meet potential end use requirements.

The Lachlan Shire has been identified as a potential area to establish a commercial hub for an integrated biomass supply chain, due to the Mallee tree being an endemic species to the area.

With the assistance of NSW DPI and Future Farm Industries (FFI) CRC, have previously undertaken a complete biomass supply chain assessment and development, from farm to processing of pellets and delivery for co-firing for Delta Electricity, which provided significant learning and insight into the development of a large supply chain for a specific end user. As a result of this project, 11 trial sites across the Central West of New South Wales, including the Lachlan Shire, have been established.

One of the established models for Mallee plantings is managed by the Co2 Company in Western Australia and New South Wales, primarily as a carbon sink. During the interview process with farmers, this type of planting model was strongly viewed as undesirable. For example, when whole paddocks are converted to Mallee plantings, there are no other options for agricultural activity, with a potentially significant reduction in capacity for food production. A system for biomass production is required that is synergistic with existing agricultural practices and pursuits.

The central location of the Lachlan Shire, with 1,431,838 million hectares of arable agricultural land, and in excess of 600 farmers as potential growers of biomass, provides a significant catalyst for the establishment of a stand-alone power generation plant or other fuel processing. Such plants would provide significant reductions in transport and logistical costs, compared to the supply of biomass feedstock to an existing power station 300 to 500 kilometres east of the Lachlan Shire.

In addition to Delta Electricity, other large industries are expressing interest in biomass feedstock. For example, Blue Scope Steel has explored the use of carbonised biomass in steel making, and Virgin Australia has investigated the use of biomass as a feedstock for second generation biofuels. While these opportunities are only beginning to emerge, they could have direct impact and relevance to biomass supply chain scenarios.

The term agronomy (the science of using plants in agriculture) is used throughout this report with regard to woody crops. It may be seen to be more appropriate, however, to use the term silviculture (the science of management of forests) or agroforestry (combining trees and shrubs with crops and/or livestock). Agronomy is preferred, as the context in which trees/shrubs are used is predominantly agricultural and there has historically been no significant use of trees/shrubs in wheat belt agriculture in Australia. In these regions, adoption of the agricultural lexicon achieves clarity, for example, the term ‘rotation’ is commonly used in both agronomy and silviculture but has different meanings. So, to avoid confusion, agronomic terms are used throughout this report.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the potential in the Lachlan Shire for large-scale biomass supply from sustainable Mallee eucalypt, in the form of large-scale tree belts. This biomass is a feedstock suitable for a number of end uses, including local electricity power generation, liquid biofuels and pellets/torrefaction as solid biofuel for out-of-area consumption.

Specifically, the objectives were to:

• Report on the Western Australian and New South Wales experiences and opportunities for development in the Lachlan and surrounding shires

• Map shire and identify agricultural land bank

• Determine suitable areas for Mallee production based on landscape and climatic suitability

• Model biomass growth rates and biomass outputs

• Investigate a nursery propagation site, versus utilising existing regional nursery capacity

• Confirm planting, growing, and in-field best practice protocols

• Assess the cost of proposed planting protocols

• Prepare a project information memorandum

• Consult farmers and hold Mallee growing demonstrations through workshops, field days and face- to- face interviews

• Identify key decision variables and other factors affecting farmer participation

• Model supply chain cost to identify indicative famer returns

• Prepare an expression of interest template for farmers interested in participating in an aggregated supply chain

• Select appropriate species and nominate cultivation plans

• Recommend on-farm systems for the establishment of Mallee eucalypt

• Consider growers biomass production model

• Discuss harvesting plans with estimate of energy crop yield

• Commence discussions with potential processors and marketers

• Measure and evaluate existing trial sites.

Methodology

Primary and secondary research was undertaken, along with evaluation of field planting trials, harvesting trials, farm land suitability and soil mapping (including auditing of selected farms), industrial site assessment, evaluation for bioenergy power station establishment, and review of commercial nurseries which could provide the necessary volume of planting stock for the project.

Primary research and consultation was undertaken with farmers, contractors, potential investors and end users, government agencies and councils.

A series of field days, focus groups, farm visits and media interviews were conducted to provide both the agricultural sector and broader community with information and awareness on the integrated biomass Mallee project.

An information memorandum was developed for distribution, setting out the project fundamentals for consideration by interested farmers and stakeholders across the region.

Interviews and consultation with key stakeholders, including Lachlan and surrounding Shire councils and the relevant Catchment Management Authorities (CMA) then in existence, occurred to evaluate the potential of an integrated biomass-derived power station in the Lachlan Shire.

Field trials and harvesting evaluations were conducted on five-year old Mallee trees at Chris and Kim Jones’ property, ‘Brotherony’, Condobolin, over a three week period, with the BioEngineering Systems ‘Bionic Beaver’ mechanical harvester.

Physical infrastructure site evaluations, soil sampling and mapping, road and transport infrastructure and logistics assessment were also undertaken.

The Delta Electricity Trial has provided a starting platform for the harvesting of Mallee and processing options to meet end user requirements. Other existing international systems for harvesting and processing have also been assessed.

The Mallee Opportunity

Mallee eucalypts are native to the Lachlan Shire (an endemic species, highly adapted to the prevailing soils and weather). They are quick growing and suitable for continuous harvesting because of their coppicing ability, and because their large root mass will support ongoing, above ground harvesting. The trial plantings are species E.polybractia – Blue Mallee (narrow leaf); E.loxophleba sub sp lissophlora and gratiae (broad leaf) Mallee species which have been successfully grown in Western Australia for many years.

The root system remains intact, sequestering carbon and providing significant benefits under the carbon accounting and trading scenario created by the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Bills.

The Western Australian experience and the Delta Electricity Trial provide two case studies on the potential for large scale tree belts, complementary to current farming practice. These two case studies are covered in further detail within this report. The Western Australian Mallee experience

A major objective of the FFI CRC Report was to deliver a comprehensive statement of how and why Mallee practices evolved the way they did in Western Australia (the significant input from John Bartle, Dr Armir Abadi and Rick Giles is acknowledged). The aim was to provide a solid foundation of background knowledge to facilitate, transfer and adapt this knowledge for New South Wales based projects. This statement of knowledge is a useful starting point for the development of Mallee biomass production practices in New South Wales. It could also be seen as an exercise of due diligence in developing a Mallee biomass plan. Importantly, the exercise has built working relationships between Aurora and FFI CRC, so that the process of RD&E can accommodate the New South Wales perspective.

Mallee eucalypts were an obvious choice for development of tree crops to produce biomass in the low rainfall wheat belt agricultural regions of southern Australia. They were a dominant component of the woodlands that formerly occupied much of the wheat belt, and are highly adapted to the tough wheat belt climate with its regular exposure to drought and fire. They have multiple stems emerging from a woody rootstock which lies just below the soil surface which has numerous embryonic buds that sprout or coppice to quickly restore a canopy, in response to the loss of the above-ground parts of the plant due to fire or drought. This coppicing ability works just as well when that loss is due to regular harvest. The 100 year history of harvest of native stands of Blue Mallee (E. polybractea) for eucalyptus oil at the southern end of the project area near West Wyalong in New South Wales attests to the ready adaptation of Mallee to commercial harvest.

The Western Australian State Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) instigated development of a Mallee industry in Western Australia in 1993. The considerable commitment to Mallee that emerged during the 1990s was motivated by the state’s extreme salinity problem, and the recognition that only a commercially- driven woody crop would achieve the scale of planting necessary for salinity control. Farmers were also motivated by the potential to diversify into new industries, stimulate regional economic development and participate in carbon sequestration.

Mallee is now recognised as a promising addition to wheat belt agricultural systems, and as having potential to create large new rural industries. Since 1993, the total investment in Mallee in Western Australia now exceeds $60m. There are more than 1000 Western Australian wheat belt farmers who have, in aggregate, planted some 13,000 ha of Mallee crops, mostly in the form of belts integrated into cropping land.

The Western Australian report provides a detailed technical discussion of the evolution of the cultivation of Mallee in Western Australia. It also provides commentary on the likely transferability of

Western Australian practice to the proposed project areas in the central and southern areas of New South Wales. It outlines conceptual design of suitable Mallee planting layouts, and presents economic analysis to indicate the cost structure required to make Mallee competitive with alternative farm crops in this region. From this initial data and research, trials with the NSW DPI were undertaken to develop a New South Wales system specifically for biomass production, as opposed to Western Australia, where the development has predominantly been, to date, for salinity control.

The majority of the Mallee trees in Western Australia, which were planted in their particular configurations, do not lend themselves to harvest-ability.

The research, fieldwork and trials performed have been to define the most appropriate configurations for harvest-ability and maximisation of yield of the trees for a biomass supply chain. The trial work has provided clear learnings and, as a consequence, protocols for land evaluation, soil surveying, farm mapping and planting configurations have all been developed. Technology and systems have been developed with Integrated Tree Services for the efficient planting and management of root stock. Delta Electricity trial sites in New South Wales

Delta Electricity is the largest electricity generator in Australia, which recognises the benefit of innovation to reduce carbon emissions by using renewable energy fuels. Delta is a state owned corporation that has identified the demand for 1.7 million tonnes of biomass annually. The Delta Mallee Biomass Trial was conducted across five shires (across 11 farms, over 170 kilometre radius in Central West New South Wales).

Up to four sites per farm were randomly selected, which included species E.polybractia – Blue Mallee (narrow leaf); E.loxophleba sub sp lissophlora and gratiae (broad leaf). A combination of soil types was used for the planting trials which were measured at six, 12 and 18 months after planting. As a result of the trials, a Mallee establishment protocol was developed and suitable land index created to identify the most ideal planting scenario.

This trial has contributed extensive insights to this report and a summary of the trial results are included in Appendix B.

Delta Electricity Trial Results

Delta Electricity Trial Measurements, June 2011

Method: Up to four sites per farm were randomly selected which included species E.polybractia – Blue Mallee (narrow leaf); E.loxophleba sub sp lissophlora and gratiae (broad leaf). Exceptions were on two farms where poly varieties were unsuitable for testing, due to stock damage and waterlogging.

Each site consisted of a 50m twin row belt. Measurements taken were:

• Base diameter at ground level in millimetres • Height in metres • Spread in metres.

Discussion: Tree numbers varied between plots due to planting density variation caused by hand planting and occasional tree mortality.

Trees with damage, such as tops chewed off by hares, were included in the sample.

Samples were averaged for each plot and row to create a benchmark for future analysis.

For ease of comparison and to suit farmers at meetings and field days, an average of all measurements per farm was also undertaken (with the exception of Darcy and Duff plantings). Planting sites were uniform with farms.

The Darcy and Duff plantings had belts in both farming (cultivated) and non-cultivated areas.

In addition to lesser tree performance, the heavy clay soil sites of the W. Lander and Maslin plantings resulted in restricted growth, while access was difficult due to waterlogging. This would also give rise to harvesting and transport problems in the future.

Results: There is no significant difference within farms between different sample sites or varieties although the Cooper planting displayed a trend in Year 1 favouring lox performance (this property is the most eastern of the trial sites).

There is a difference between the heavy clay soil sites of Maslin and W. Lander sites where performance is obviously impaired by the wet growing conditions in the heavier soils.

G. Jones is excluded from analysis due to stock damage to sample sites. However, the recent (Oct. 2011) observations indicate trees previously chewed by sheep are now responding well.

More detailed results are available at Appendix B – Delta Mallee Trial: Mallee growth measurements.

Protocol Summary – Mallee establishment

• Determine site based on soil type, machinery access, management practices, area, roadways, power lines, telephone line, etc • Assess weed pressure and, if necessary, use knockdown herbicide/slash/burn • Deep rip planting lines in summer • Apply residual herbicide after ripping • Determine if autumn fallow spray (knockdown) needed. This may not be necessary on farming sites where there is carry-over from cropping herbicides • Ideally, 10 days prior to tree planting, apply residual herbicide (e.g. Simazine or Verdict, if grass problems) • Assess soil moisture conditions and plant in winter (late May if soil moisture at field capacity). Consider water polymer injections in drier conditions • Likely to need two post-planting sprays for summer and winter weeds, e.g. Verdict (grasses), Lantrel (thistles), Broad strike (brassicae). Use shielded sprayer if available for post-planting broadleaf herbicides.

Notes: Check site cropping history (if any) and avoid planting for designated periods where certain residual herbicides, e.g. Glean has been used. Prohibit stock access after planting for at least 18 months.

Trial result averages, 2011

Figure 1: Comparison of growth over trial farms

Suitability of the Lachlan Shire for Biomass Feedstock Supply

This report considers the suitability of a region of around 1.43 million hectares of arable land in central west New South Wales, for the purpose of growing Mallee as biomass feedstock.

The area under consideration is centred around the Lachlan Shire and includes the surrounding Bland, Parkes and Forbes Shires. This region offers opportunity for the development of Mallee plantings for a biomass supply chain for the following reasons:

• The weather patterns are very suitable to Mallee, which is endemic to the region

• The properties are relatively large and fairly flat, and therefore very suitable to grow and harvest Mallee

• The broad range of land holdings and various farming systems within the project area lends itself to a combination of planting methodologies being adapted

• Mallee can compete financially over a 20-year average with expected returns on existing farming practice (predominantly wheat cropping), particularly given the great variability in cropping returns over the past 20 years

• The land values are less than for those properties that have irrigation licences and infrastructure or are in higher rainfall areas

• There are very good secondary roads that provide B-double and road train access which is important for transport efficiencies for biomass

• A flood-free area around Condobolin has been identified as a very suitable location for a processing plant (e.g. for electricity generation or biofuel) with existing road access, power and water

• There are sufficient hectares of suitable agricultural land available within a 100 kilometre radius to enable the required hectares of Mallee plantings to be achieved to warrant a processing plant

• There are in excess of 600 farmers in the region. Sufficient farmer interest has been received to provide the required feedstock needed for a stand-alone biomass generation plant

• The CO2 Company has established numerous Mallee plantations as carbon sinks throughout Central Western New South Wales. These activities have established operational practices for Mallee planting in addition to skilled contractors

• Mallee has been successfully harvested for its oil in neighbouring West Wyalong for a period in excess of 100 years. Climate

Condobolin, New South Wales lies on a latitude of 33° with an average annual rainfall of 462 mm.

The region is climatically most comparable to the southern part of the Western Australian wheat belt. However, New South Wales rainfall is far more uniform than the Mediterranean-type Western Australian climate.

Figure 2: BOM rainfall comparison - Condobolin Ag Research Station/Narrogin State Farm

Soils

Figure 3: Target area showing suitable red soil types in the Lachlan and surrounding shires

The GRDC SoilPak Central West NSW states that central west New South Wales has soils with fewer subsoil problems than many other grain growing areas of Australia. The NSW DPI has conducted many successful trials at the Condobolin Agricultural Research Station on soil types that are representative of the catchment area.

The Delta Mallee Biomass Trial results reinforced that the best results for Mallee growth are achieved on lighter sandy loams through to well-structured heavier red clay loams. Infrastructure

The geographic position of the Lachlan is ideally suited to supporting efficient transport and logistics. Presently the road network is used extensively for the transport of grains and cotton. Use of road trains is a proven method for low cost bulk handling of biomass materials. Delta Electricity and NSW DPI, together with Aurora Research, have established trial sites in Lachlan and Forbes Shires, to examine biomass as a renewable energy source for co-firing with coal at Delta’s Wallerawang Power Station.

Part of this project involved research in mechanical harvesting, solar drying, pelletising and co-firing of Mallee eucalypts. As part of this trial, an evaluation was also undertaken to determine availability of suitable land (sites), and establish Mallee landing areas (harvested Mallee aggregation points). Six nodal areas have been identified to support the development of a supply chain.

The central location of the Lachlan Shire also provides a significant catalyst for the establishment of a stand-alone power generation plant. Such a plant would provide a significant reduction in transport and logistical costs, compared to the supply of biomass feedstock to an existing power station. A number of European nations successfully operate regional stand-alone power generation plants. Research and visits to such plants confirm the technology can be adopted in Australia. A number of Australian companies researching and developing power generating technologies should be evaluated in the future, in order to gain a clear understanding of critical operational and economic success factors. Community and commercial support

Delta Electricity has supported this project, recognising that it will contribute further knowledge to their project, and advance commercialisation of a biomass industry to provide a parallel strategy for fuel supply for both stand-alone and co-firing projects.

In addition to Delta, other large industries express interest in biomass feedstock. For example, Blue Scope Steel and the use of carbonised biomass in steel making, and Virgin Australia, for the use of biomass as a feedstock for second generation bio-fuels. While these opportunities are only beginning to emerge, they are of direct relevance to the biomass supply scenarios which could be providing the first feedstock in the near future.

Lachlan and Forbes Shires recognise that the establishment of an integrated biomass power generation supply chain provides regional development opportunities. Specifically, the councils have supported the project both financially and strategically as it provides two clear opportunities:

1. Establishing a new crop that can be integrated into their traditional agricultural economic base

2. Establishing a new secondary industry that provides investment, jobs and economic sustainability.

Farmer Engagement

Imperative to the project was farmer engagement. Local farmers were informed and invited to on-farm field days, so they could see how Mallee could integrate with their current agricultural activities. Invitations were mailed to both Lachlan and Forbes Shire farmers directly from Council.

A series of field days were held with guest speakers from Aurora, NSW DPI, FFI CRC, Corporate Carbon, Delta Electricity and tree planting contractors. This gave farmers access to information as well as printed materials to further consider the potential Mallee integration.

The field days provided a great opportunity to understand the psychometric considerations a farmer would undertake to identify their key decision variables toward engaging in the project.

From all the field days an extensive Q&A process was undertaken with the following information outcomes:

• The price to be paid to farmers would have to be acceptable based on economic reasons and collateral benefits including community value

• There will need to be a price rise agreement to ensure that farmers gain from any increase in electricity generation/liquid fuel process and also from carbon trading prices

• If possible, the cost of planting the trees will not be a burden on the farmer

• The farmer will not have to purchase new equipment

• Farmers should have the ability to effectively collaborate and build supply chains, with low risk to the individual farmer

• An understanding the legal framework in regards to tree areas planted (roles and responsibilities under a profit a prende system) is required

• Needs to be integrated in to present farming activities with the least amount of disruption.

The field days/workshops and farm visits also provided other insights:

• The farmers will typically use their land in a rotation of crops and pastures

• The price per hectare being offered for harvested mallee should be competitive with the land use (of other activities) over a ten year period (given the great seasonal variability experienced over the last ten years)

• Farmers saw an opportunity for financial return from non-arable areas or under-utilised land resources

• This project also provided farmers a new integrated way of thinking where they could consider the issue of diversification and adaption to climate change

• Farmers considered it important that there was scope for farm business and regional economic diversification into industrial product and energy with strong local processing options

• Farmers saw a distinct advantage in this project as only a proportion of farm area needed to be set aside for Mallee production and still be integrated into their annual cropping and grazing

activities, as opposed to planting trees right across the farming areas in a non-harvestable model

• Farmers saw the project would provide improvement to habitat and environmental protection, as well as providing capital value

• Farmers believe the project provided an alternative means of generating cash flow that would be unaffected by short term fluctuations on weather, or grain and meat/wool markets.

Demand Farming - Farmer Engagement Outline

The key element in determining a biomass industry in Australia is having farmers engaged and willing to integrate energy tree corps into their farming systems to initiate the supply chain. Please see Appendix A for further explanation on this area.

Develop and publish a PDF print-ready information flyer to provide background information on the project

A two page flyer was developed to convey to farmers the background and projected outcomes of integrating Mallee into existing farming systems for biomass feedstock and carbon credit benefits. See Appendix A to view the information flyer.

Conduct field days and group activities

Over the course of the project, the following was conducted:

• Community information booths - local Shows and Energy Forums (12)

• Field days at Mallee trial sites (4)

• Focus groups (3)

• Harvesting and logistics trials (3 weeks)

• Numerous farm visits

• Liaison with Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) across Central NSW

• Radio interviews

• Media coverage – local news

The combination of all these activities was to create awareness across the target farmer area (Lachlan and surrounding shires), to raise awareness of the project potential and how the project dynamics would work, as well as demonstrating the farming system integration at the Mallee trial sites.

The activities also allowed interested farmers to speak with researchers and industry leaders as well as the participating farmers in the Delta Electricity Trial. It also provided an insight as to whether or not farmers were attracted to the project proposition and whether Mallee would integrate into their present farming operations.

The outcome from the farmer engagement created significant interest, with 175 participants attending the field days with 130 expressing interest in receiving project information updates. Overwhelmingly, there was a high level of interest from the farmers as they saw the project could provide crop diversification, a new income stream that was not as weather dependant as traditional farming

activities, long term sustainability (including collateral benefits) and the creation of a new area- specific industry.

Biomass Production

The establishment of a successful biomass production supply chain will require the following:

• appropriate species selection to maximise biomass production levels

• local nursery capacity is available that can provide the high number of acclimatised seedlings

• integrated Mallee system design

• planting design for field performance

• planting practice

• Mallee crop management.

Species selection and cultivation

There has been extensive testing of Mallee species in Western Australia. This experience, combined with comparative assessment of climate and soil conditions in the project area and the trial areas, indicates that Eucalyptus polybractea (Blue Mallee) and a versatile Western Australian native species E. loxophleba spp lissophloia (Smooth Bark York Gum) should be the major species used. Programs for genetic improvement of both species are well advanced in Western Australia and orchard seed suitable for planting in the project area is available.

The Mallee species used in Western Australia were selected from a large range of potentially suitable, mainly native species. The first systematic species selection to occur in Western Australia was undertaken by Barton (2000) in the 1980s. He saw the cineole component of eucalyptus oil as having undeveloped potential for large scale industrial use. Mallee leaves produce high cineole eucalyptus oil. This oil, which is 85% cineole, makes up 1% of whole green biomass. His range of species became the starting point for the subsequent Mallee Development Program commenced by CALM in the early 1990s.

The CALM program was based on the assumption that, in order to be commercially successful, efficient harvest and utilisation of all components of the Mallee crop would have to be achieved, and that this would involve multiple products including bioenergy, engineered and processed wood products as well as chemicals derived from eucalyptus oil. This wider range of products required that species selection be expanded to include productivity and product quality attributes of all biomass components. The criteria for species selection were also expanded to include species suited to the range of soil and climatic conditions across the Western Australia wheat belt.

The species that have been planted extensively in Western Australia are listed in Table 1. They are all natives to the south west of Western Australia with the exception of Eucalyptus polybractea (Blue Mallee).

The home range of Blue Mallee is in two disjunct populations at West Wyalong in New South Wales and west of Bendigo in Victoria. Native stands in these locations have been subject to harvest for eucalyptus oil for approximately 100 years and therefore current markets recognise Blue Mallee as the standard for high cineole Mallee eucalyptus oil. In recent years, there has been some farmland planting in both Victoria and New South Wales. E. polybractea has been found to be the most productive species in the cooler wetter south-west part of the Western Australian wheat belt.

Table 1: WA Mallee plantings

WA range mm/yr Sub-generic Soil texture Species Common name % planted1 category preference Rainfall Evapn

Eucalyptus loxophleba ssp Smooth Bark 39 250-400 1800-2400 lissophloia York Gum Series Medium Loxophleba Eucalyptus loxophleba ssp Lake Grace 8 300-400 1600-2200 gratiae Gum

Eucalyptus kochii ssp 23 250-400 2200-3200 plenissima Series Light to Oil Mallee Eucalyptus kochii ssp borealis 18 Oleosae medium 300-400 2400-2800

Eucalyptus kochii ssp kochii 2 350-450 2200-2800

Section Eucalyptus polybractea Blue Mallee 8 Medium 400-600 1600-2000 Adnataria

Series Medium to Eucalyptus myriadena 1 300-450 1800-2600 Ovulares heavy

Eucalyptus angustissima ssp Series Light/salt 1 350-500 1600-2000 angustissima Cneorifoliae tolerant

1. From 1994 - 2008 some 12,000 ha of Mallee has been planted in the WA wheat belt 2. Adapted from the WA Mallee Industry Development Plan (OMA/FPC, 2008)

In Western Australia, intensive screening has been undertaken to identify other native Mallees worthy of addition to the range in current use. Assessment has focused on biomass productivity and leaf oil content. New species were mainly sought from within the same sub-genus groups that had already provided useful species. Other species with particular vigour or site adaptations (e.g. to acid or saline soils) were investigated even if their oil content was relatively low. A further 15 or so species have been assessed in this way. Some may find their way into common use in the future. For example, another Loxophlebae subspecies (E. loxophleba ssp supralaevis) appears to have promise to extend use of this group northwards; another Cneorifoliae species, E. quaerenda, also shows promise; E. leptopoda appears promising for light acid soils.

Taxonomic and molecular genetic investigation has been conducted within species that have several variants so that the degree of difference between them can be determined (Byrne, 1999; Hines and Byrne, 2001). If variants are genetically close, it may be appropriate to combine them into one breeding program. Alternatively, if they are genetically different but of similar appearance, it is important that they can be recognised and segregated in field seed collection.

Planting of Mallee in Western Australia extends from latitudes 29 to 34 degrees and is all at low elevation (250-300m). Rainfall varies from 300 to 600 mm/year (with a strong winter maximum). Evaporation varies from 2800 mm/year in the north east to 1600 in the south and can be considered to impose a stronger pressure on species selection than rainfall.

The Western Australian experience has shown that E. polybractea has limited tolerance of hotter and drier climate conditions. Existing CO2 Mallee plantings in the region are growing extremely well, including E. polybractea. There is clearly good potential for E. loxophleba spp lissophloia and spp gratiae in the project area. Performance of these species declines in higher rainfall areas in Western Australia (>600 mm/year), and it would therefore be best targeted to lower and drier parts of the project area.

Figure 4: E. polybractea (left) and E. loxophleba ssp lissophloia planted in 2004 on Chris Jones’ property ‘Brotherony’, 30km west of Condobolin, NSW

The Western Australian State Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM) has invested heavily in genetic improvement of Mallee and in the establishment of a supply of high quality seed for commercial use. No other comprehensive Mallee breeding and seed production program exists in Australia.

The Western Australian breeding strategy is based on recurrent selection. This process involves the accumulation of desirable genes in a breeding population over many generations of selection and crossing. Each generation of selection and crossing gives progressively better quality seed.

In 2001, the Department of Environment and Climate (DEC), as part of the Australian Low Rainfall Tree Improvement Group (ALRTIG, sponsored by the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (JVAP)), conducted a series of experiments to test the genotype by environment (GxE) interaction in E. polybractea. This test is undertaken to determine whether the expression of genetic improvement varies with environment. Experiments using the same seed selections were established in the four southern states. The project showed little variation in E. polybractea leaf oil content and vigour with location hence, a single national-scale breeding project is feasible. This also means that it is technically sound to use improved seed produced in Western Australia for operational planting in New South Wales.

FFI CRC commenced activities in July 2007. It plans to sponsor a national breeding project for E. polybractea. DEC will be a prominent participant in this project.

It is sound for the project to consider acquisition of orchard seed or selected wild seed from the Western Australian-based mallee breeding program. This could be augmented by collection of selected wild seed from within native stands in New South Wales. Nursery

Mallees are established using 25 cm high seedlings produced in nurseries at a cost of approximately 30 cents. Nursery practice is routine but some scaling up of nursery production capacity in the project area will be required. It is extremely important that the trees be grown and acclimatised or 'hardened up’) to give the seedlings the greatest opportunity for survival. The seedlings planted in the project area trials for Delta Electricity saw an extremely high survival rate which can be attributed to the quality of the seed and seedlings provided.

Nursery practices have evolved without any major problems. In Western Australia, nursery sowing is commonly carried out in November/December into containers with volume of 40 to 60 cc. These months are usually quite hot. Hot summer conditions contribute to an extended period of germination of Mallee seed in commercial nurseries. This can be mitigated by higher seeding rates and thinning to remove late germinants that would otherwise cause too much size variation in the crop. Uniform germination can be facilitated by stacking containers in a cool, dark place for a few days after sowing. Germination takes 3 to 4 weeks to emergence but can sometimes drag on for 8 or 10 weeks giving rise to lack of uniform seedling size.

To establish a nursery of the required capacity for this potential project, capital expenditure in excess of $4m plus land (10ha) will be required. Operational costs are approximately $1.2m per annum. (Appendix 2).

In the first instance, it is recommended that experienced commercial nurseries be the preferred option, due to high capital costs and technical nature of production, particularly taking into account there is no long term identified demand for nursery production at this stage in the target area at the completion of this project. Mallee system design

Over the 18 years of building a Mallee biomass resource in Western Australia, many design and species combinations have been tried in a number of different regions. This provides a rich field of experience from which to assess the options for integration of Mallee into wheat belt agricultural systems.

Belt plantings have become the most commonly used layout, with row numbers varying from two to six. Belts are aligned in parallel and on slopes, often in contour or near-contour arrays. The belt spacing used (i.e. the distance between belts, also called the ‘alley’ width consistent with the alley- farming concept) is most commonly a multiple of two or three times the widest cropping implements (to give alley widths commonly in the range 60 to 120 m).

Large scale wheat farmers report that well designed belt areas present no obstruction to large scale cropping. Furthermore, Mallee belt systems have been found to provide useful shelter, e.g. to allow herbicide spraying operations under windier conditions than would be possible in the absence of the belts, and to protect light erodible soils after crop failure or when subject to risky operations, such as early seeding.

With the delayed development of commercial harvest, early planted Mallee belts in Western Australia are now well beyond the ideal harvest size, and competition zone impacts on annual crops have become very obvious. While it is recognised that harvest itself will moderate such impacts it is clear that growers will require this issue to be subject to rigorous economic evaluation.

The yield variation along any belt at any locality is often observed to be as large as the variation in yield across whole districts. This is also the case with competition zone impact. These observations reflect the considerable local variation in soil and other site attributes in the Western Australian wheat belt. The most sensitive attributes are presumed to relate to water availability factors such as potential for lateral and vertical reach by root systems and the amount of re-distribution of rainfall as local run- off or shallow sub-surface water flow.

Western Australian growers were attracted by the potential collateral benefits of Mallee belts and there has been strong farmer recognition that these can be achieved without loss in the efficiency and viability of the farm. For example, the management of water logging and salinity, control of wind erosion on light soil, shelter for stock, aesthetics/amenity and environmental benefits have all attracted interest. These benefits are difficult to quantify in an economic analysis but even when delivered as a collateral benefit, farmers believe they provide an additional motivation for adoption.

A final category of motivation for planting is to better utilise low opportunity cost land. In Western Australia, this has mostly taken the form of preferential planting of poor cropping soils, best evidenced by the extensive belt systems placed on acid sands in the central wheat belt region. To date, there has not been much activity in systematically exploiting land occupied by farm infrastructure into which Mallee roots may penetrate, e.g. by planting adjacent to fence lines, firebreaks and tracks. However, planting along surface water management structures (mainly contour or grade banks for water erosion control) is widely used.

Given the complexity of integrating all the costs and benefits, how do farmers, and other interested parties, design Mallee planting distributions that can be efficiently integrated into the existing farm system with the best chance of commercial success? Over the 18 years of development in Western Australia there have been two main pathways by which improvement in the integration of Mallees into farming systems has been achieved.

Planting design: rules-of-thumb of field performance

Many responses of Mallee to climatic, soil and management factors are easily interpreted and have quickly led to simple rules-of-thumb to guide planting design. Leading farmers, advisers, farmer groups and industry associations (e.g. Oil Mallee Association) have proved very innovative in devising new methods and consolidating them into rules-of-thumb or ‘best practice’. Examples of some rules- of-thumb that have emerged in Western Australia include: avoid soils that have impenetrable horizons at shallow depth; avoid soils with outcropping basement rocks; do not plant on ridge or hill tops; use contour or low gradient belts to maximise passive capture of any lateral flows of water; align belts with existing surface water management earthworks and use high resolution guidance equipment to achieve accuracy in alignment of belts. However, even with the application of such rules, there would still be considerable yield variation along belts indicating the action of factors not too complex to resolve by skilful observation. The Delta Electricity Trial also confirmed the type of soils in New South Wales to avoid. Black or heavy loams provided significant challenges as to establishment and growth rate. The best results have been achieved on lighter sandy loams through to well-structured heavier red clay loams. Growth rates have been measured for trees in rocky soils and found to be less than half than that of the preferred soil types.

Water

Field establishment is a mature practice and costs approximately $1,500 per planted hectare. There has been considerable testing of planting density in Western Australia that indicates a two row belt configuration should be adopted. Mallee requires little routine management input. Mallee is quite tolerant of grazing, once established, and does not require expensive fencing and makes dispersed belt planting more likely to be viable.

It is clear that the major factor affecting yield will be available water. This is the reason for narrow belt systems demonstrating a strong yield advantage over plantations. In Western Australia, belts have approximately double the yield of plantations. They have a large perimeter to area ratio so that lateral root spread captures water from the area adjacent to the belt as well as intercepting any lateral flow of water from local run-off. The lateral root spread imposes competition on the adjacent crop or pasture and this must be accounted for in the economic analysis. However, this impact does not negate the competitiveness of belts over plantations.

It is imperative to design belt layouts to favour interception of extra water and this will require a high level of interaction with farmers to ensure that proposed layouts do not conflict with other farm activities. In particular, many farmers are contemplating the adoption of precision farming where navigation systems drive machines, inputs are regulated according to soil type and yields can be accurately recorded. These systems require high resolution spatial data management via geographic information systems (GIS). Mallee planting design must anticipate these developments, utilise GIS and be ready to design compatible Mallee layouts.

Mallee belts, intended to be planted in farming country, need to be at a spacing to suit multiples of the widest farming machinery width, e.g. precision seeder/sprayer (protocols and systems that provide the best layout options have been developed).

Evaporation potential exceeds rainfall by a factor of three or more across the range of Australian wheat belt climates. The winter annual crops avoid most of the adverse impact of this by growing in the cool part of the year when rainfall generally exceeds evaporation. Perennials have to be adapted to avoid or tolerate the extremes of the climate by having deep or laterally extensive root systems, conservative growth and water use characteristics, and by seeking to occupy niches or zones where local or regional re-distributed rainfall accumulates (e.g. around rock outcrops, along drainage lines). In many arid areas the phenomenon of ‘banding’ of natural vegetation occurs, where the vegetation separates into belts of greater and lesser height/density reflecting a segregation into water source and sink areas (Tongway et al, 2001).

The clearing of the native vegetation of the wheat belt has changed the water balance in agricultural catchments. The original cover of deep rooted woody vegetation maintained an approximate balance of rainfall and evapo-transpiration, soil profiles were kept dry to some depth and run-off volumes were low. The replacement of this cover with mostly annual, shallow rooted crops and pastures has caused a build-up in soil water storage and an increase in run-off. In many areas the increase in soil water content, internal drainage, enhancement of recharge to groundwater systems and run-off results in the mobilisation of previously stable stored salt and increased salt load in rivers.

Figure 5: Rainfall and Mallee root zone diagram Woody phase crops are less well developed than belts and Harper et al (2008) lists several aspects of phase cropping that require further investigation. The ultimate test of the competitiveness of the two approaches will be determined by the success in capture of water in addition to incident rainfall. Woody phase crops are constrained by the fixed store of water and the need to limit the duration of the woody phase to that required to exhaust that source. This means that spatially dispersed woody crops appear to have better potential because the area planted can be varied to provide sufficient catchment for water to achieve a commercially viable yield.

Spatial dispersal using 2-row belts should be used for the bulk of the proposed project. Belt layout should be designed to exploit low opportunity cost land where available, as well as integration into farming land, and capture extra water by interception of lateral water movement. Planting practice (preparation, technique, timing, spacing/density)

During the 1990s, Western Australian Mallee crops were planted at high density (2m between rows, 1.5m within rows, 4 rows per belt or 2,667 trees/ha). This was an application of a well-established silvicultural principle, i.e. planting density can be used to manage plant form. In this case, the

objective of high density planting was to reduce average stem diameter, and thereby reduce harvest difficulty and generate a higher proportion of leaf in the biomass produced. The larger leaf fraction would, in turn, increase the yield of eucalyptus oil which was then seen as the major product of Mallee. Milthorpe et al (1998) used densities up to 9,000 stems/ha in an experiment at Condobolin, New South Wales planted in 1990. Their first harvest was taken at age one and then annually for a further four years. They showed that for these young stands, there was a significant increase in biomass yield with planting density up to 5,000 and 7,000 stems for E. kochii ssp kochii and E. polybractea respectively.

A feasibility investigation of Mallee biomass processing showed the wood fraction was likely to become the major revenue source (Enecon 2001). This forced a review of agronomic practice that has not yet been fully incorporated into operational planting, i.e. a lower planting density should be adopted to favour larger average stem diameter, larger wood chip size in harvested biomass and a larger wood proportion. This change was supported by other observations: In Western Australia, as Mallee plantings grow beyond 6 or 7 years of age, suppression of inner rows in 4 row Mallee belts became common. This occurs even in higher rainfall areas. While Mallees are juvenile and their root systems are growing into unoccupied moist subsoils, higher planting density will appear to give greater yield but, as full soil occupation approaches, competition between individuals occurs and the yield advantage of higher density will diminish. This is likely to have occurred in the experiment reported by Milthorpe et al (1998) had observations been continued for a few more years.

Experimental harvest of 210, 20 m long plots of E. loxophleba spp lissophloia in 6-9 year old belts with 400 mm annual rainfall in Western Australia using individual tree measurement, showed no relationship between the number of trees in the plot and the yield over the density range of 1,000 to 3,000 plants/ha (Figure 9). This observation is important in that it supports the conclusion that the limiting factor is water availability, not planting density or sunlight radiation intensity.

Studies of soil water content showed that considerable vertical (>10 m) and horizontal depletion (up to 20 m) of soil water in the root zone of less than 7 year old Mallee belts occurred on a wide range of soils (Robinson et al. 2006, Sudmeyer and Goodreid, 2007). The vertical depletion depth was observed to extend for considerable distance beneath the lateral roots to provide a wide zone of deep soil water depletion.

Figure 6: Mallee planting density and yield for belts aged 6 - 9 years

Wildy et al (2003) showed that the water use of Mallee grown in belts could exceed the rainfall received by the belt. This could occur through tapping stored water within the root zone, by using

rainfall entering the soil profile adjacent to the belt, or by capture of surface or shallow subsurface flows from upslope.

Cooper et al (2004) showed that additional sources of water, i.e. other than rainfall incident on the belt, were needed for Mallees in belts to grow at commercially acceptable rates.

These observations indicate that Mallee has high water use potential. This potential can be fully utilised with lower planting densities than commonly applied (i.e. wider within row spacing and fewer rows per belt), which will favour larger average stem size and increase the proportion of wood in Mallee biomass. This is how the Delta Electricity Trial was planted in central west New South Wales.

A consequence of favouring wood production is to force harvester development in the direction of machines of larger capacity to handle the heavier wood dimensions while still achieving economies of scale in terms of volume throughput.

This means that, best practice is now turning to a maximum of two rows per belt, 2 m spacing between trees within each row and 4 m between rows. Note that opening out the between-row spacing to 4 m is to accommodate a larger harvester footprint, as this appears a likely outcome of the current harvester development work. The retreat from 4 row belts, not only gains a better balance with available water, but will also eliminate the potential difficulty in planning harvest where adjacent rows have different biomass yields (e.g. the optimum harvest time for the larger external rows will not be the optimum time for suppressed inner rows).

Figure 7: 2 row belt planting configuration with competition zone The productive capacity of the belt is determined primarily by the resources available from outside the belt area. The key variable is the number of trees per kilometre of belt, not the number per hectare. Water and nutrient resources from within land occupied by the belt itself are a comparatively small proportion of the total resources utilised to grow the trees. For this reason it is likely that field yield data (not yet available) and economic analysis will show that a single row belt (with tree spacing reduced to about 1 m) provides more efficient water capture, biomass production and profit.

There are several factors that need to be considered in relation to row number and spacing within belts:

• For all belt widths, a buffer adjacent to the annual crop (i.e. a no-plant zone) of 2 m should be adopted. This is the zone of most intense competition between the woody and annual crops.

Other than for weed control, there is no benefit in expending annual crop inputs so close to the trees.

• The within-belt spacing that has evolved in Western Australia should also be applicable in New South Wales. Although rainfall and evaporation are both more favourable in New South Wales, evaporation still exceeds rainfall by a factor of three, and high belt planting densities will be inefficient.

• In some situations, a ‘block’ planting may be preferred. A block planting is where full site occupancy by Mallee is planned (i.e. Mallee roots occupy the full alley or inter-belt width). This will generally preclude cropping the alley area. The distance between belts (the alley width) should be chosen to permit full lateral root system cross-over between belts, or a minimum of 10 m between rows.

At this stage, it is recommended to use two-row belts. However, one row belts are also competitive and should be used where appropriate (e.g. low shelter need, grower preference, no alley cropping).

Note: belt width should be subject to the proviso that it must qualify as carbon sink. For two row belts use 2 m within rows and 4 m between rows. For one row belts use a spacing of 1.5 m within rows. Integration of Mallee on farms

The proposed project is to grow Mallee as a crop that is harvested every three to four years, after the initial five year growing period, (dependant on prevailing in-field rain). The below image shows diagrammatically how Mallee (shown in green) can be grown in paddocks to complement the current rotational farming practice.

Figure 8: Integration of Mallee on farms Fence line belt planting

Figure 9 gives an example of the metrics for a 49 hectare paddock that is a square 700 metres by 700 metres. The length of the Mallee belt is 2.7 kms, slightly less than the circumference of 2.8 kms to allow for gate and corners. The area of each kilometre is 0.7 hectares; therefore the area planted to Mallee is 1.9 hectares that equals 3.9% of the 49 hectares of paddock.

Proportion of paddock in trees 3.9% Area of each kilometre of belt (ha) 0.7 Harvest cycle (years) 5, 3, 3 Harvests (gt/ha) 54, 54, 54 Mean annual production (gt/ha) 18* Mean annual production (gt/km) 14.4 Length of all belts (km) 2.7 Area of belts per paddock (ha) 1.9 Total production per paddock (gt/yr) 38.9

*Assuming 462mm annual rainfall

Figure 8: Fence line belt planting example for a 49 hectare paddock Alley belt planting

The below image shows that, with alley belt plantings the proportion of a 49 ha paddock that can be allocated to Mallee, can be increased to 7.3% compared to 3.9% for fence line planting. The alleys are 72 metres wide to allow for farm equipment use, with headlands at either end of a belt to allow turning room for the equipment.

If the paddock is not to be farmed, twin row block plantings at 10m intervals is an option. This will result in 50% of the area being cropped to Mallee. Given a yield of 18 green tonnes per planted ha per annum, a block planting will realise 9 t/per field ha/yr. Preliminary discussions, including workshops with farmers and end users, e.g. Delta, a net farmer return of $8 to $10 per green tonne appears achievable, this will give a return of $90/per field ha or $180 per planted ha (block plantings have 50% of the area covered in trees). As Mallee is not prone to the ravages of drought and rain at harvest, this is considered a viable return compared to grain farming results of recent years.

*Assuming 462mm annual rainfall

Figure 9: Alley planting example on 49 hectare paddock Crop management (pests and disease, nutrition, grazing/fencing)

The on-going management workload for Mallee crops is modest. Some work is required in the second year after planting to help get the crop away. This may involve follow-up weed control and protection from grazing. It has been found that it is not generally worthwhile to refill stands that have suffered high mortality, although <75% survival may make the stand too difficult to manage at harvest (due to over-size trees). Mallees are quite tolerant of sheep grazing and farmers in Western Australia have quickly learned how to manage without fencing. However, planting is usually carried out in conjunction with a crop and stubble grazing program withheld until late summer to avoid exposing the seedlings when they are most vulnerable in the early summer following winter planting.

Experience with coppice management is now being generated. It suggests that insects and drought can cause problems in early coppice emergence. There is no concern about nutrient deficiency at establishment or leading up to the first harvest. However, repeated harvests will run down the usually strong nutrient stores available to deep rooted Mallees (Groves et al, 2007) and practices will ultimately have to be developed to manage coppice nutrition. Management protocols have been developed for farmers as there was some neglect in grazing management of, in particular, sheep in the Delta Electricity Trial and some areas of trees were lost to poor stock management.

Harvest, Transport and Processing

Harvest

Harvest regime and coppice management

The history of harvest of native stands of E. polybractea in New South Wales and Victoria provides abundant evidence of its productivity and persistence over more than a century (Davis, 2002).

The Mallee industry development in Western Australia has not yet progressed to the stage of large scale harvest. The only current operational harvest is conducted by Kalannie Distillers at Kalannie in the north-eastern wheat belt region (rainfall 320 mm/year) where E. kochii ssp plenissima is the major species. This operation has been conducted intermittently over some four years with development and durability of harvesters and operating costs, providing the major obstacles to continuous operation. The operation uses a combined field bin/distillation vessel for steam extraction of oil, comparable to the existing Mallee oil operations in New South Wales and Victoria.

Western Australia’s experience during harvest has shown that coppice can be severely affected by harvesting too frequently. Herbivorous insects can repeatedly defoliate coppice, delay regeneration and cause mortality and drought conditions can exacerbate both of these outcomes.

Major processing options will generally require a continuous supply of biomass. Stockpiling of green biomass is likely to be expensive and only practical to even out short term fluctuation in flow along the supply chain. Therefore, harvest will have to be conducted all year round.

Frequency of harvest

The below image shows the size of Mallee trees that have not been harvested (1) compared to Mallees that have been harvested 18 months prior (2) and Mallees that were harvested in autumn 24 months earlier (3). The people standing in the paddock indicate the tree size.

Figure 10: Frequency of harvest example - early wheat planting

As mentioned previously, harvest interval will be determined by crop growth and is directly proportional to in-field rain and soil type. The other factor to consider is the end user, where the wood fraction required may vary which would allow for some harvesting flexibility (e.g. oil versus wood

pellets). Delta’s econometrics within their supply chain identified a level of flexibility with regard to harvest frequency as material can be stockpiled for some time so that the harvesting frequency can be managed more effectively when there is climate variability.

Figure 11: Harvesting and transport of Mallee chips

Figure 12: Coppiced harvested trees beside unharvested trees

Figure 13: Tree to the left harvested 14 months ago. Background - unharvested Mallee 6 years of age and to the right - mallee which was harvested 6 months ago Competition zone

Figure 15 shows the same paddock as above as the wheat begins to be ready for harvest. The allowed two metres from the tree trunk to the cultivated area is clearly shown in the picture but there is very little effect on the plants at the two metre mark compared to closer into the centre of the paddock. Over time, the impact zone will grow as the root zone increases. Frequent harvesting maintains a smaller impact zone which assists in integration into farming systems, as opposed to non-harvested plantations.

Figure 14: Competition zone example

Evolution of harvest mechanisation

From the outset, in 1993, the Mallee industry was envisaged as a large volume industry, with a scale commensurate with the extent of the land degradation problems it was intended to help address but, as a consequence of its scale, the industry will also produce industrial commodities with modest margins between the cost of biomass production and probable market value of the commodities. The biomass supply chain must operate profitably within this margin at a lower cost per tonne than existing tree harvesting systems.

Continuously travelling chipper harvester

The OMA (Oil Mallee Association), FFICRC and Aurora Research have investigated harvesting alternatives. The existing oil Mallee industries in Bendigo and West Wyalong were considered, and the coppice willow industries in Sweden and the UK were also examined, to determine if there were precedents that the Western Australian Mallee industry could follow.

One of the most successful willow coppice harvesters is the Austoft/Case NH cane harvester adapted to willow coppice, and as there was a supply of second-hand machines available, a cane harvester was brought into Western Australia for trials in 1995. This machine was not successful, even on the small Mallees that were available at the time. The main shortcoming of the machine was that it had difficulty feeding the Mallees into the roller train, which normally conveys harvested cane from the base cutter under the cab to the chopper box at the rear. The base cutter was also not well suited to the woody nature of the Mallee stems and its location under the cab requires that the harvester must drive over the top of the tree before cutting it down.

The forage harvester-based machines such as those of Claas and Krone were, and remain the most commonly utilised in European coppice crops. These machines were examined more closely after the disappointing experience with the cane harvester. However, these machines also push the crop forward and then sever the stems so that they flick up into a feed roller train. The feed to the chopper is horizontal, so the severed stems must be sufficiently flexible to allow the butts of the stems to be horizontal in the feed roller train at one end, while the tops are being pushed into the uncut stems ahead by the forward motion of the harvester.

A feature of both forage and cane harvesters is their use of chopping mechanisms for comminution of the crop. The mechanisms are different in detail but common in the practice of severing the plant stems at right angles to the fibres in the stem. This is the most appropriate method for processing flexible grass stems. Chipping is different from chopping in that the cutting action is conducted at an angle to the stem fibres so that as the knife edge cuts through the wood, chips form by splitting occurring simultaneously with the cutting. The chips split apart and stream away behind the knife, leaving room for the knife to continue its passage through the wood. This method is important for relatively incompressible material such as wood; chopping at right angles to wood fibre requires a lot more energy than chipping and could lead to premature mechanical failure of the chopper. It is therefore essential that a Mallee harvester employs a chipper for comminution. Chipping also produces wood in a particle size and shape that is an accepted standard for a range of established wood processing industries.

Other methods investigated and trialled in the early days included the use of modified flail forage harvesters and ‘land conditioners’ similar to the machinery still employed at West Wyalong and Bendigo. There was also experimentation with defoliation leaf harvesting, leaving the stems to be cut and disposed in a separate operation. Leaf harvesting was difficult to achieve and the problem of removing the stems still remained. Flail harvesters proved to be quite damaging in that they pushed the Mallees over before cutting, and when combined with the action of the flail hammers, caused significant numbers of young Mallees to be uprooted. Kalannie Distillers, a farmer-owned company in the central Western Australian wheat belt, persisted with and significantly refined the flail forage harvester method but this technique was eventually abandoned due to the high maintenance costs.

The principal product from the Mallee crop was initially expected to be eucalyptus oil, so relatively small Mallees were to be harvested for their foliage. However, it was anticipated that wood chip would become an economic resource once large volumes of Mallee biomass are collected at central points for processing. The problems encountered during early trials, together with an expectation that larger Mallees producing wood as well as foliage would need to be harvested in the future, led to the decision that a purpose-built machine was required. The principles considered to be important for this machine were:

• The machine would be a continuously travelling self-propelled chipper harvester. This would be an analogue of the most cost-effective harvesters such as forage harvesters, sugar cane harvesters, and the modified forage and cane harvesters used in the Swedish willow industry

• The cutting mechanism was adapted from forest harvesters that used robust disc saws with replaceable teeth

• The Mallees would not be pushed down prior to cutting

• The transfer of the cut stems from the saw to the chipper would hold the stems upright with the crowns held above the machine, so that the shape and size of the Mallees became less significant. Control over the Mallees was to be maintained principally by holding the lower parts of the stems

• The biomass was to be chipped to compact the material into a flow-able product without causing excessive damage to the foliage (which causes oil loss by evaporation)

• A drum chipper configuration was preferred over a disc chipper due to the ability of drums to process shrubby materials better than discs. Also for a given mouth size, a drum chipper is more compact than a disc chipper

• A high road speed would be required to efficiently move between areas of concentration of the Mallee resource.

These principles are being followed within the current harvester development project by Bio- Engineering Systems Australia.

The first prototype harvester was built in 1998 and 1999 using the engine and hydraulic components from the previously purchased second-hand cane harvester. This machine was only modestly successful primarily due to difficulty in transferring the cut Mallees into the mouth of the chipper. Work then lapsed as funds were exhausted, until in 2002, Western Power (now Verve Energy) injected additional funds and the chipper feeding mechanism was improved.

The principal limitation now became the power requirement of the chipper and work again stopped due to lack of funds. In 2004 and 2005, a grant from RIRDC together with industry funds were used for the analysis by the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture (NCEA) of chipper power requirements, which led to the development of a new chipper. This chipper was installed in the harvester and trialled in the workshop in 2005. The new chipper achieved a 45% reduction in the energy demand per kilogram of biomass processed. However, further testing has now been incorporated into the new FFI CRC harvester project which has been built by Bio-Engineering Systems Australia. Aurora has successfully trialled this machine at its Mallee trial site at Condobolin, NSW and has gained some very useable information with regard to harvesting dynamics.

Figure 15: Harvest images from Central West NSW (2011)

Figure 17: Mallee ready for first harvest, Central West NSW (2011)

Figure 18: After harvest – chips beside stump left for coppice re- growth

Over the last ten years the specifications of the Mallee crops have trended consistently from Mallees less than 3 m high weighing less than 15 kg, to Mallees up to 10 m high, averaging about 40 – 50 kg and with some individuals of about 200 kg. These very large individuals may be less than 1% of a stand of Mallees, but inevitably occur, and the harvester must be capable of processing them even if they are cut and chipped individually and at a very low speed. The harvester, in concept, has become a machine that occupies the technological gap between forage harvesters processing large grasses with a chopper mechanism, and existing forestry tree harvesting systems that supply wood chip and process with a wood chipper. It has recently become apparent that the northern hemisphere willow and poplar coppice crop industries are pressing for the capacity to harvest larger stems. There may therefore be a market in Europe and North America for new technology developed in Australia to harvest Mallees.

Other harvesting options have been researched and trials in Canada of another technology, a round baler - ‘the Bio Baler’, may have application in Australia in certain circumstances. The Anderson Bio Baler is a newly developed piece of technology that has the ability to bale almost any form of biomass, from purpose-planted standings of willow and poplar, woody weeds to potentially standing stubbles and crop residues. The Bio Baler requires only 200hp tractor at a maximum, however, will require a CVT type transmission. A continuously variable transmission (CVT) is a transmission which can change ‘steplessly’ through an infinite number of effective gear ratios between maximum and minimum values. This contrasts with other mechanical transmissions that only allow a few different distinct gear ratios to be selected. The flexibility of a CVT allows the driving shaft to maintain a constant angular velocity over a range of output velocities. This can provide improved fuel economy than other transmissions by enabling the engine to run at its most efficient revolutions per minute (RPM) for a range of vehicle speeds.

Figure 19: Bio Baler

From the videos and photos taken and personal viewing, the Bio Baler travels at approximately 8 km/h for willow and poplar harvest and takes, on average, around 40 seconds per bale (400kgs) including tying.

The Bio Baler can mulch and bale poplars up to 7” diameter and 8 metres tall. Speed would vary somewhat on density of the timber being baled but that also is achievable with the gear box and horse power up front.

The material dries well in the round bales. It can be stacked and stored for a considerable amount of time (see figure 19) and transported to a processing plant for secondary processing in a tub grinder. This technology was assessed on the basis of cost of machine and its flexibility working in wetter conditions as compared to the cost and all up weight of a continuous harvest machine. With 30 - 40 tonnes an hour possible, and a cost of $150,000 plus the cost of the tractor, it may be worth consideration. There could be some potential problems with the feeder housing mechanism but the manufacturers believe it could be modified to suit Mallee. It is recommended that this equipment be trialled in Australia to view how it operates with Mallee (and potentially woody weeds) to correctly evaluate its performance versus a continuous harvest machine such as the ‘Bionic Beaver’.

Mass flow rate

The cost structure of a supply chain is strongly influenced by the mass flow rate through the system. The optimum level for new woody crops has not been determined but modelling has consistently shown that, up to some as yet unspecified limit, the greater the mass flow rate, the lower the cost per tonne of biomass, as fixed or relatively inflexible hourly costs are spread over greater tonnage. The limit will be the point where the harvester becomes so large and cumbersome that it can no longer moved at the speed required for an industry with a widely dispersed resource. Field testing of the proposed prototype Mallee harvester will be required to identify the optimum mass flow rate. However, it is anticipated to be between 60 and 80 green tonnes per productive machine per hour (i.e. excluding turning, waiting, travelling and routine daily maintenance). This will equate to approximately 600 - 800 green tonnes for one 10 hour shift (a bio baling system would appear not to be able to achieve this).

Figure 20: Harvester used by the Oil Mallee Company

Figure 16: Harvesting willow into bales (Canada)

Figure 22: Willow bales (Canada)

Figure 17: Willow harvest (Canada) Transport

Methods for handling and transporting chipped wood or biomass are well-established in other industries, but work needs to be carried out to determine which system will work best for the new woody crop industries. A biomass ex-harvester will have a sufficiently high bulk density, if properly packed, to enable trucks to be loaded by mass rather than volume. There is no apparent advantage to drying the biomass before transport as the material packs better when it is moist and a load of green material is expected to contain more dry matter than a load of dry chipped material. During biomass solar drying field trials, the material dried down to 20% moisture content, but much of the small fraction could be lost by wind, loading and transportation. The density of undried material and the ability of that harvested material to be transported without any significant losses to the receival point is extremely important. Consolidated green chipped Mallee biomass has a bulk density of approximately 400 kg per cubic metre.

Containers or bins

The simple issue of whether or not it will be feasible to tip biomass from one bin to another will need to be resolved by field trials. Tipping or conveying biomass may reduce the bulk density so much that the harvester will have to pack containers with the high velocity discharge from its chute and the containers will then have to be passed from one vehicle to the next without disturbing the contents. This strategy of containerised handling is unlike the existing systems commonly used in silage or sugar cane handling, where tipping and conveying are common practices.

The research report ‘Sustainable Biomass Supply Chain for the Mallee Woody Crop Industry’ (Eric Schmidt and others) delves into significant detail, comparing the learnings from sugar cane bulk handing and transportation and what could be applicable in a Mallee supply chain situation, which also confirms the outcome of their own field work and trials. From the research undertaken for this report, the following has been determined:

• Being able to design the Mallee tree layout on each farm from the beginning allows for maximising harvesting and transport logistics

• The farms which have been surveyed and configured in the trial have provided an opportunity to establish the most efficient framework possible

• The road infrastructure and paddock configuration offer the ability for road train access in- field for the majority of harvesting, over a twelve month period, except over a period of extended rain

• From the trials undertaken biomass has been successfully stored, in excess of three months, without significant loss of energy value which then provides for the ability to stockpile to manage material inflows around significant rain events

• A number of trailer configurations have been considered (as in ‘Eric Schmidt and others’ report), and side tipping trailers offer the greatest level of flexibility and delivery options.

Landings and bin or container size

The landing where haul-out to road trailer transfer takes place will be an important feature of the proposed transport system. To make logistics and truck/haul-out coordination practical, the harvesting operation should not move more than once a day, and once a week would be desirable. If a landing is utilised for 5 days and 2,500 green tonnes of biomass is hauled to that point, about 800 ha would represent the ‘catchment’ for the landing. Servicing this area means that on-farm transport distance will vary between a few hundred metres and approximately 3 km, depending upon the location of the harvester when each bin is filled. Where on-farm transport is commonly a few kilometres, bin/container capacity will have to be matched to the capacity of a single road trailer, approximately 70 cubic metres or over 25 tonnes payload. Using haul-outs of half the capacity of the road trailers is logistically feasible but 12 – 14 tonne bins would be too small for the longer on-farm transport distances.

Number of haul-outs per harvester

If a harvester is followed by two haul-outs working in rotation (one filling while the other is travelling), then when haul distance is short, one of the haul-outs will be idle for much of the time and when haul distances are at their maximum, the harvester will need to slow down to allow the haul-outs to keep up. This change from haul-out under-utilisation to over-stretch may occur quite quickly if the Mallee crop is arranged in long belts widely spaced in large paddocks.

Modelling has demonstrated that the potential for lowest cost on-farm transport is achieved when the harvester tows its own bin and a single haul-out is used as a shuttle between the harvester and the landing. With this configuration, the haul-out is fully utilised as a transport vehicle, whereas when two haul-outs are used in rotation and the harvester does not tow its own bin, one haul-out is always creeping along beside the harvester and the mass transfer per haul-out per hour is halved. However, whether or not the harvester can pull a loaded 70 m3 bin and still manoeuvre effectively, will only be determined by field trials and tests of the next prototype harvester. Any harvester will need to have a road train side delivery bin as well as a paddock haul out side delivery bin that can be taken to a central point on the farm or between neighbouring properties, as the aggregated landing point, and then shuttled to the processing plant in Condobolin to provide the best transport efficiencies possible. It will be critical that the further harvesting development be undertaken hand in hand with the infield transport logistics so as to provide the optimum solution.

Figure 18: 40 ha potential processing site on outskirts of Condobolin with access to road and rail The township of Condobolin within the Lachlan Shire was surveyed, which determined it is the most appropriate area to construct a processing plant. One of the insights from the recent floods that were experienced across the region was the ability to identify suitable parcels of development land that were not flood affected in any way. After field assessments, it was determined that the former abattoir site of 40 hectares on the north of the Condobolin township was the preferred option for the following reasons:

• Designated industrial development site • On the high side (nth) of the river and completely flood free • Road train access • Access to the main east-west railway line • No urban encroachment (or in the future ) • Local shire council supportive of the site redevelopment • Excellent north/south/east/west road access from Lachlan and surrounding shires • Ability to have a buffer zone • Land redevelopment costs likely to be lower than other greenfield sites • Close to all amenities and services required for the redevelopment of the site.

Figure 19: 40 ha potential site at Condobolin

Processing options

If a stand-alone electricity power station is the desired outcome, an area of 5,000 planted hectares would be required to provide sufficient biomass feedstock for a 10 megawatt station. Power station development costs vary depending on technology selection but, a good rule of thumb is to allow $5m per megawatt.

If a pelletising plant was to be an end use option, 200,000 green tonne input plant would produce 80,000-100,000 tonnes of dry pellet equivalent at a capital cost of $14m which includes pre-processing (sizing) drying, materials handling, pelletising and storage.

There is considerable research and development being undertaken to torrefy green wood mass. The early indication is that, once commercial plants can be commissioned, the capex and operational costs will be lower than traditional pelletising plants, given the savings in drying costs and materials handling. This technology will provide a product that closely aligns to a coal type product, which provides greater ability for stand-alone power as well as co-firing. There are also considerable savings in transport costs due to the increase in calorific value of the torrefied product versus a wood product. In Australia at present, there are a number of torrefaction technologies being developed and some, such as Pacific Pyrolysis, have been successful in building development plants, having recently received funding from state and federal governments to commercialise their technology. Over the next five years, it is expected there will be a growing maturity within torrefaction technology which will allow for biomass projects to operate efficiently and differently to the traditional processing methodologies presently used in Europe.

There has been a considerable amount of work undertaken, both internationally and in Australia, in relation to second generation fuels using torrefaction and hybrid technologies to create liquid fuels from cellulose material. Recently Virgin Airlines, GE and Enecon Pty Ltd announced a joint venture to commercialise the manufacture of second generation liquid fuels for the aviation industry using Mallee trees as the primary feed stock.

There is interest from Renewable Energy and Biofuels Limited (REBL) regarding the creation of a bioenergy hub to develop a resources assessment mechanism known as regional bio-energy symbiosis. In effect, this means integrating a biomass feedstock with another renewable energy source, such as solar.

As the costs of fossil fuels increase and technology advances, the opportunity for liquid fuels from cellulose materials will become economical. New technology has been identified in the United States of America that has significant application in Australia for liquid fuel refinery and manufacturing from cellulose materials. Successful plants have been built in the US and Aurora is continuing discussions to see if this technology will be adaptable to Australian Mallee biomass production. Due to the long term harvest-ability of Mallee plantations, it is Aurora’s view that the output side of these plantations may well begin as a power energy cycle (electricity) and transfer, over time, into a liquid fuel energy cycle.

Other industries have been identified that could be provided with Mallee as a feed stock to replace coal, e.g. high grade coal fines are used in the manufacture of high grade steel. Mallee has been identified as a replacement fuel which provides two benefits, by lowering the CO2 profile of the steel manufacture and providing a sustainable fuel source. This is particularly suitable for torrefied material from Mallee.

Planning and Information Management

Advice on design and logistics has been developed in relation to the Central West New South Wales Mallee projects. Coordination is extremely important as planning, design and information management are rapidly becoming more complex. In this short section, the issue of cohesive planning and information management is overviewed. New South Wales contractors were involved in using custom- made specialised equipment, for example, shielded sprayers and purpose-built heavy duty rippers which have assisted greatly in the establishment and management of the Delta Electricity Trial.

The desirability of more effective water capture and its benefit, in the form of waterlogging and salinity control, is driving a rapid evolution of designs for belt systems in Western Australia. Surface water management requires high resolution topographic data (2m) and this requires access to good digital terrain models (DTM). Differential GPS, navigation controlled machinery and laser levels are being increasingly used to direct field operations.

It is anticipated that if efficient planting machines are developed they will be equipped with GPS to digitally record every tree planting location in order to be able to use ground-based digital photographic methods to regularly monitor yield for carbon accounting and harvest planning.

Planning, establishment and monitoring tools are best managed within Geographic Information Systems (GIS). As these systems become large enough they will provide the opportunity to undertake analysis of many aspects of performance. For example, ancillary spatial data and yield estimation data will enable variation in yield to be related to site factors. This, in turn, could feed into site selection, yield prediction and large scale project planning. GIS would become the foundation for harvest planning and management.

Compatibility with precision agriculture, farm water supply and existing farm infrastructure

The objective of achieving greater water capture for woody crop production needs to be assessed in the context of overall farm planning and management. Water capture can be passive (down-slope flow to woody crop belts planted on the contour) or active (harvest of water from one location and its transfer to another topographically lower location using banks, water ways and channels). Especially the active form of water harvest will need to be built around or modify existing farm layout (roads, fences, buildings) and existing farm water supply system. Future auto-navigation and precision agricultural technologies will need to include options to operate on the contour and traverse water conveyancing structures. Although this will not be difficult to achieve in a technical sense, there will be an early market preference for simpler (i.e. rectangular) precision farming procedures.

Markets and Collateral Benefits

Discussions with potential marketers/processors

In addition to ongoing liaison with Delta Electricity, discussions commenced with other companies including:

• Renewable Energy and Biofuels Limited (REBL) • Australian Solar Thermal Energy Association (AUSTELA) • Integrated Tree Services • Enecon Pty Ltd • Corporate Carbon • Driftwood Capital • Project developers for coal replacement in the steel supply chain • Operators of stand-alone biomass power stations • Operators of stand-alone wood pellet fuel production facilities • Domestic and foreign project investors • Australian-based integrated energy companies • Caltex.

In all discussions, it was apparent that there was an appetite to understand the potential of a biomass supply chain, but there was considerable concern about federal government policy and how a carbon market may work into the future. There was a level of uncertainty in the marketplace for investing in a new class of renewable energy as opposed to the major investments already undertaken in solar and wind. Two companies attended field days and engaged with the farmers in the Delta Electricity Trial so as to provide further information and insight as to the potential of establishing a biomass supply chain.

Sequestration of carbon in Mallee trees

Biomass growth and carbon density are key indicators of carbon sequestration. Mallee biomass is typically broken down according to above ground biomass and below ground biomass. Above ground biomass includes items such as stems, branches, twigs and leaves, while below ground biomass incorporates the lingo-tuber root mass (it is this root mass that allows the plant to coppice after harvest). Biomass growth rates are a function of soil type, nutrient availability and water availability.

Carbon content in Mallee trees

Carbon content refers to the mass or percentage of elemental carbon that is contained within a Mallee tree. When a tree grows, it uses the process of photosynthesis to convert sunlight, atmospheric carbon dioxide and water into simple sugars. When these sugars are transported from the photosynthesis site (leaves) to other parts within the tree they are changed into the more complex structures of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin.1

A living tree is thus a combination of predominately water (50 per cent) and woody cells (50 per cent). The chemical composition of the woody cells (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) is as follows:

1 Redman, A., 2008, ‘Characterisation of wood properties and transverse anatomy for vacuum drying modelling of commercially important Australian hardwood species’, Forest and Wood Products Australia, Melbourne, accessed at http://www.fwpa.com.au/sites/default/files/PGD100- 0809_Vaccum_Drying_Dennis_Cullity_Report.pdf, March 2012.

• cellulose: C6H10O5 • hemicellulose: C6H8O4 • lignin: C9H10O3(OCH3)x

While the various proportions of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin vary between species, and also between different components within the tree, the dry weight component of a tree is approximately 50 per cent carbon (C), irrespective of the species. This means that one tonne of living biomass from any 2 tree species contains approximately 250 kilograms of carbon, which is equivalent to 0.92 tCO2e.

More specifically, under the national accounting system used in Australia, the following proportions of carbon on a dry weight basis are applied to the various tree components3: • stems: 52 per cent • branches: 47 per cent • bark: 49 per cent • leaves: 52 per cent • coarse roots: 49 per cent • fine roots: 46 per cent

The national carbon inventory reports on six forest types. The allocation of biomass on a proportional basis is presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Partitioning of biomass to tree components under the Australian National Inventory 4 Coarse Fine Forest Type Stems Branches Bark Leaves Roots Roots Rainforest 60% 8% 9% 3% 17% 3% Tall Dense Eucalypt Forest 55% 12% 10% 3% 17% 3% Medium Dense Eucalypt Forest 50% 15% 12% 3% 17% 3% Medium Sparse Eucalypt Forest 47% 15% 12% 3% 20% 3% Cypress pine Forest 47% 15% 12% 3% 20% 3% Other forest 47% 15% 12% 3% 20% 3%

Above ground biomass

The above ground biomass component of a forest includes the stem, leaves and branches. The proportion of biomass accounted for as above ground biomass and the carbon content on this biomass on a dry weight basis is presented in Table 3 below.

2 The conversion of carbon to units of CO2e is undertaken by applying the conversion factor of 44/12 (3.666) which is the IPCC default. The atomic mass of carbon is 12, while the molecular mass of carbon dioxide is 44 (one carbon atom at 12, and two oxygen atoms with combined mass of 32). 3 DCCEE, 2011, ‘National Inventory Report – Volume 2’, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Canberra, accessed at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/greenhouse- acctg/national-inventory-report-2009.aspx, March 2012 4 Ibid 2012

Table 3: Above ground biomass proportions and carbon content under the Australian National Inventory 5 Above Ground Carbon Content Carbon Content Forest Type Biomass (%) (kg C) (kg CO2e) Rainforest 80% 410 1500 Tall Dense Eucalypt Forest 80% 407 1490 Medium Dense Eucalypt Forest 80% 406 1490 Medium Sparse Eucalypt Forest 77% 390 1430 Cypress pine Forest 77% 390 1430 Other forest 77% 390 1430

Table 3 shows that Australia reports that above ground biomass in forests comprises approximately 80 per cent of the trees mass, and that this accounts for approximately 1.5 tonnes CO2e for a tree weighing 1 tonne on a dry weight basis.

Below ground biomass

The below ground biomass component of a forest includes the coarse roots and fine roots. The proportion of biomass accounted for, as below ground biomass and the carbon content on this biomass on a dry weight basis, is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Below ground biomass proportions and carbon content under the Australian National Inventory 6 Below Ground Carbon Content Carbon Content Forest Type Biomass (%) (kg C) (kg CO2e) Rainforest 20% 97 360 Tall Dense Eucalypt Forest 20% 97 360 Medium Dense Eucalypt Forest 20% 97 360 Medium Sparse Eucalypt Forest 23% 112 410 Cypress pine Forest 23% 112 410 Other forest 23% 112 410

Table 4 shows that Australia reports that below ground biomass in forests comprises approximately 20 per cent of the trees mass which accounts for approximately 0.4 tonnes CO2e for a tree weighing 1 tonne on a dry weight basis. The Mallee plant is understood to have a larger lignotuber root system than what is modelled for the six major forest types used in Australia’s national accounts. The implications of this discrepancy are discussed in the following section.

Calculating the carbon content of Mallee stands

Calculating the carbon content in Mallee is undertaken by calculating the standing stock of biomass and then converting this tonnage of biomass into tonnes of carbon, and then to tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (for the purposes of carbon credit issuance).

Calculating the amount of biomass present within a given area that is planted to Mallee can be done by: • direct measurement in the Mallee forest using forestry mensuration methods7

5 Ibid 2012 6 Ibid 2012 7 See for example, Research Working Group #2, 1999, ‘Code of Forest Mensuration Practice’, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Canberra, accessed at http://fennerschool- associated.anu.edu.au/mensuration/rwg2/code/index.htm, March 2012

• modelling of the biomass content using software packages such as FullCAM8 • combination of the direct measurement and modelling.

Direct measurement

The direct measurement of above ground biomass in forests is a well-established practice within forestry operations, set up to measure saw log content. The following key data are collected from plots within the forest:

• diameter at breast height • height of the tree • stem density per hectare.

There are some small adjustments made to the underlying calculations for sawlogs which are relevant to carbon calculations but not to commercial sawlog production, e.g. to include branches and leaves. The disadvantage of this approach with Mallee is the difficulties with measuring below ground biomass, which is thought to comprise a significant amount of the tree (approximately one third of the mass of the entire tree).

Growth models such as FullCAM

The Full Carbon Accounting Model (FullCAM) was established to estimate and predict all biomass, litter and soil carbon pools in forest and agricultural systems.

The FullCAM model is used to account for Australia’s land sector national greenhouse gas emissions. The model thus operates at a project specific level on a similar basis to Australia’s national greenhouse inventory for land use and land use change.

FullCAM uses the Carbon Accounting Model for Forestry (CAMFor) to model carbon and nitrogen cycling in a forest including trees, debris, soil, minerals, and wood products. The model is based on forest growth which can be included as yield curves, empirical growth formula, and process modelling. However, the major limitation is that a coppice harvest model or Mallee has not been set up within FullCAM. The harvest options imply the entire re-planting of the forestry estate. Furthermore, the estimated size of the root mass at one third of the entire tree mass is not used. The root mass options are between 20 and 23 per cent, which reduces the modelled amount of below ground biomass for the coppice Mallee harvest model.

Combinations of measurement and model

The limitations with the modelling approach relates to the underground biomass component. For example, under the FullCAM approach, a hectare of Mallee with 60 tonnes of above ground biomass and 25 per cent component for the root system would have total biomass of 80 tonnes (roots comprising 20 tonnes – at 33 per cent this would be 30 tonnes). For the sake of example, assume the stand would grow to 180 tonnes of above ground biomass over 25 years if left unharvested. The same model would predict a root mass of 60 tonnes (at 33 per cent this would be 90 tonnes).

The coppice harvesting approach is predicated on the root system continuing to grow to a similar level (albeit slower) to that of an unharvested stand. The model would thus need to be calibrated to allow the estimation of continued growth of the root mass. The impact of firstly calibration of an increased proportion of root mass to stem mass, and secondly of continued growth of the root mass is in the order of 40 to 70 tonnes of additional biomass that could be included in the carbon stock. In carbon

8 FullCAM is an integral component of the National Carbon Accounting Toolbox which can be accessed at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/ncat.aspx.

credit terms, this relates to an additional issuance of 36 to 63 credit units during the first 20 years of harvesting.

The harvest cycle length for Mallee belts is likely to be most strongly determined by the biomass yield per km of row. Efficient harvester performance is likely to be in the range 60-80 green tonnes/hour. Using a ground speed of 3 km/hour, this is equivalent to 20-30 green tonnes/ km of row. As each row approaches this yield it should be scheduled for harvest.

The time to achieve threshold yield will be determined by site attributes (including rainfall as an approximate indicator of total available water), number of rows per belt and whether it is the first or a subsequent (coppice) harvest. The figure below is a graphical presentation of above and below ground biomass production for a two row Mallee belt for a high rainfall region. Note the initial five year period before the first harvest, the on-going three year harvest cycle and the continuing increase of root biomass over time. The latter will qualify as a carbon sink.

Figure 20: Projected above and below ground biomass production for harvested Mallee stands in the project area

Yield is a sensitive determinant of the profitability of Mallee crops. Plant physiological models are available to predict yield but relevant, good quality data inputs are too few to calibrate and validate models for paddock scale application. For the economic analysis, an estimate of likely yield average over the proposed project area was derived from empirical data from a comparable area in Western Australia. A yield estimate is 18 green tonnes/ha per year over the project area’s range of 447 mm annual rainfall. This was used as the output from harvest cycle sequences and belt dimensions (one or two row belts) that are appropriate to the area. Corporate Carbon, together with Aurora Research, are developing a below ground carbon methodology to capture the value of the below ground sequestered carbon.

Economic Analysis

Tree establishment costs

Tree establishment practice is a mature technology, even in wheat belt regions.

Practices such as ripping, mounding and spraying are essential. The following guide is based on contract rates used in Central West New South Wales plantings and assumes a centralised project area.

$/Ha Ripping/Mounding 300

Preplant sprays (x3) incl. chemical 180 Simazine Roundup Postplant sprays (x 2) 230 Verdict, Simazine, Broadstrike, Lontrel Plants 1250/ha @ 27.5c/plant say 350

Planting 440

TOTAL 1500

NB: No allowance is made for monitoring/management

The number of weed sprays and the chemical mix can obviously vary depending on weed species and pressure. Establishment and management protocols have been determined by NSW DPI and Aurora Research. With key management practices such as ripping and spraying, timing is critical and long term planning is essential.

Further research needs to be conducted to compare cost and efficiency benefits of mechanical planting versus hand planting. Research in other areas has shown that the efficiency of mechanised planting can vary considerably with soil, texture and conditions.

Due to the expected large scale plantings soil conditions (ie. ideal field capacity) may not exist when planting needs to occur. Further research needs to address the results of using polymers/water injection at planting given the considerable extra cost this will add to establishment. However, using this technology could increase the planting window and the survival rate for large scale plantings. Discussions have been initiated with engineers to look at technology to streamline the planting operation.

The $1,500 per planted hectare establishment cost of Mallee is far outweighed by its coppicing ability which provides for a permanent, regularly harvestable crop and, in turn, a long term capital asset. Its longevity means it is important to utilise planting designs that are soundly based and able to stand the test of time. Yield

Yield estimation

Mallee yield will be a major determinant of commercial success. Therefore, methods for measuring and predicting biomass yield need to be developed. This work has only recently commenced in Western Australia.

Based on Western Australian experience, additional research, and subsequent subjective assessment of the environment in the Lachlan project area, it appears that New South Wales yields will be at the high end or exceed the Western Australian range of 5-10 dry tonnes/ha/year (or 9-18 green tonnes/ha/year).

The major factors considered in making this estimate of project area yields are as follows:

• Western Australian yields are for 300 to 500 mm/year rainfall, whereas the average rainfall in the project area is 447 mm/year. The more favourable rainfall in New South Wales is complemented by lower pan evaporation, i.e. 1600 to 2300 mm/year in Western Australia, versus 1600 to 1800 mm/year in the project area. Hence, water availability and biomass production potential in the project area is expected to be in the upper part of the range or exceed those in Western Australia. Rainfall in New South Wales is also more uniform than that of Western Australia. Therefore, it could be assumed that a yield of 18 green tonnes per hectare is conservative for target region and parallels on 18 years of research

• The project area has uniform distribution of monthly average rainfall. This may provide a more favourable environment through moderation of the annual summer drought stress to which Western Australian wheat belt Mallee crops are exposed

• The Western Australian data assumes careful site selection, belt configuration and potential for passive capture of lateral or competition zone water. The yield estimate would not be valid unless these conditions apply in New South Wales. One major criterion for site selection is that soils provide ready access for deep root penetration to generate a larger potential soil water sink for storage of water after peak rainfall events

• The availability of extra water from infiltration into the lateral root zone and from local upslope run-off is not easy to estimate. Most of the proposed area has sufficient relief to generate local run-off after heavy rainfall events. The generally heavier New South Wales soils also favour generation of local run-off, but the potential value of this is diminished by likely lower infiltration rates. The preliminary conclusion is that New South Wales yields are not disadvantaged in relation to Western Australia by their potential to capture extra lateral water supply. This will be an important area for future R&D

• E. polybractea and E. loxophleba will be the main species to be used in the project.

These factors indicate that a reasonable estimate of the yield range for the proposed project area would be 18 green tonnes/ha/year for the rainfall range 447 mm/year.

Economic analysis outputs

A model was developed to assess the commercial viability of growing and delivering Mallee biomass to a central point in the project area. This model provides an analytical framework for the estimation of the cost of supply of Mallee biomass from its planting and commercial integration into dry land farming systems, to harvesting and delivery to a processor for conversion into products. The model accounts for the spatial and temporal interactions and economies of scale along the supply chain. The model can also account for the value of carbon sequestered in the extensive root system of Mallees.

The model explicitly accounts for the following costs:

• land acquisition cost or the opportunity cost of land • loss of revenue associated with competition imposed by Mallee belts on adjacent agricultural production • designing the layout of the Mallee belts, planning and mapping of planting sites • earthworks, planting, establishment and maintenance of trees • supply chain management for coordination from production to delivery

• harvest and farm haulage of biomass • transport and delivery to processor.

The model maps out the economic boundary conditions for viability under alternative Mallee biomass production systems. Determining these boundary conditions for system viability requires an integrated analysis inclusive of interactions and trade-offs that occur along the supply chain. The model can be used to identify key drivers of profitability and indicate production or supply chain steps that warrant priority for R&D.

Sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the results to changes in the key inputs. This showed, for example, that if improved Mallee breeding or better water capture design gave an increase in biomass yield of 10%, this would be equivalent to reducing the opportunity cost of land by 9%. Hence a 9% reduction in land cost would be possible, or 9% less land would be required, if a 10% increase in yield could be achieved. This arises from the economies of scale that become possible with enhanced yield. In contrast to this example that indicates a high level of sensitivity to change, harvest cost is only reduced by 1% when biomass yield is increased by 1%. The ultimate effect of improving biomass yield by 1% is a 2% reduction on the final delivered cost.

Components of the delivered price of biomass

The model can calculate the delivered price of biomass in its component costs that are incurred along the supply chain. The original assumptions resulted in the final price of $52 per green tonne ($/gt) delivered to a processor’s gate at a regional location.

Due to more recent discussions as to the price of biomass and the cost of input components and contracted services, estimates have significantly changed. The only conclusive certainty relates to the price to be paid to the farmers, which will be $8 - $10 per green tonne (which includes a percentage of carbon value). This figure is not liable to change due to the following factors:

• This accounts for regional statistics and demographics such as historical yields, soil type and rainfall data, which are the key determinants of measuring opportunity costs in the area

• The price must be comparable with the existing crops (mainly cereals such as wheat) in order to, at least, meet the opportunity cost to the farmers

• There is a ‘competition’ component whereby farmers must be compensated for the loss of cropping space 2m either side of the belt area

• The price has been carefully structured as an umbrella encompassing the payment for supply of biomass (crop), compensation for the various interests in the land (rent) and the purchase of carbon sequestration rights.

Additionally, while there has been a substantial reduction of marginal costs for most other components, harvest, transport, ground preparation and planting are about as low as is presently anticipated. These currently account for the bulk of the price of biomass, however may be liable to change as the proposed project matures and supply chain management determines solutions or the best possible strategies for logistical, mapping and other issues. At present, and depending on the final price negotiated, harvest and on-farm cartage accounts for approximately 16%, transportation from farms to the regional node is 30% and payments to farmers will be 20%. Aggregation, management and repayment of capital expenditure and initial working capital for operating expenses, prior to the first harvest, is expected to be 20% and the remainder is needed for additional inputs for ground preparation, planting and contingencies.

It should also be noted that several other factors will indefinitely affect pricing levels throughout the duration of the project. Perhaps the most obvious factor is economies of scale, which will inevitably

increase due to the fact that we are on the verge of an emerging new industry and as such, most input components and processes have not been tailored or are not delivered in a large-scale and competitive environment.

Another reason why price may seem relatively high when compared to coal, is the fact that the benefits associated with biomass, included but not limited to those associated with carbon sequestration and accumulation of a carbon sink, will not realise their full potential and relevance until the legislation comes into effect as of 1 July, 2012. As a rough guide, however, it has been estimated that, at claimability levels of 100%, the carbon sequestration benefits will generate savings through RECs (what does this stand for?) sufficient enough to repay the whole capital outlay required within 7 – 8 years. Clarifying this, it means the establishment costs can be offset by the investor through Carbon Accounting of the accumulated below ground carbon, which now has a value with an approved methodology on the positive list.

Scenarios and sensitivity analysis for handling uncertainties

The model has facilities for scenario and sensitivity analysis. This feature helps test the robustness of the model’s computations and its results. Several scenarios can be tested for each of the existing or proposed land use systems. Scenarios include variations in key assumptions such as the productivity of agricultural land uses, price of carbon, biomass yield, etc. Sensitivity analysis with the model can also provide useful indicators of the elasticity of supply of woody biomass to key assumptions and factors of production. For instance, how sensitive is the commercial viability of woody biomass to the projected price of carbon?

The viability of a project is usually based on the ‘best estimates’ or ‘expected values’ of the input parameters of the model used. Any changes or errors in the assumptions about these input parameters results in changes to the cash flow pattern and financial viability of the project. The calculation of base-case NPV relies on ‘forecasts’ of cash flows. Peirson et al (2002) notes that in practice these forecasts rarely come to pass.

Poor predictability is inevitable because integrating trees into farming systems is complex and long term. However, the value of the analysis is that it enables the robustness of the project to be tested. Some of the model inputs that lack precedence or data are as follows:

• Lack of local long term information on the yield of Mallee under different management systems

• Markets for biomass products are in their infancy and likely to demonstrate price variability due to progressive innovation and economies of scale

• Markets for carbon or char are not yet established enough to give full confidence and robust price signal about the likely trajectory of prices into the future as far ahead as 30 to 50 years

• Inadequate data on the spatial and temporal interactions between trees and crop and livestock production systems in Australia.

In the presence of such uncertainty, it is important the results of financial analyses of tree planting projects are tested for the effect of changing the key input variables of economic importance. Sensitivity analysis, or ‘what if’ analysis, involves testing the effect of changes or errors in the estimated variables on the NPV and the cash flow pattern (Pannell 1997, Peirson et al. 2002). This is achieved by running the financial model with alternative estimates of the variables.

For the Mallee crops reported here the question is, what if yields of biomass or the amount of carbon sequestered are not as high as those in the original set of assumptions? How does that affect the NPV?

Will the Mallee crop ever reach the same profitability as conventional agricultural enterprises? Does it delay the payback period and, if so, by how much?

Peirson et al. (2002) states that knowledge of the sensitivity of the results of the financial analysis to changes or errors in the key economic drivers places the investor in a better position to decide if the project is too risky to accept. In addition, being aware of sensitive variables enables the researchers and project managers to strive to obtain estimates in which they can have greater confidence. The sensitivity analysis can focus and prioritise the R&D effort reducing ‘forecasting’ errors of economically significant parameters.

This showed, for example, that if improved Mallee breeding or better water capture design gave an increase in biomass yield of 10%, this would be equivalent to reducing the opportunity cost of land by 9%. Hence a 9% reduction in land cost would be possible, or 9% less land would be required, if a 10% increase in yield could be achieved. This arises from the economies of scale that become possible with enhanced yield.

Similarly, if there was an innovation that improved productivity but required an increase of 9% in growing costs, an increase in yield of 10% would have to be achieved to make this innovation worthwhile. Alternatively, if growing costs could be reduced by 9% this would be equivalent to gaining an extra 10% of biomass yield or an increase of 10% in the return per hectare.

In contrast to these examples that indicate a high level of sensitivity to change, harvest cost is only reduced by 1% when biomass yield is increased by 1%. The ultimate effect of improving biomass yield by 10% is a 2% reduction on the final delivered cost.

This relates only to the price of delivered product, not the overall capital outlay and working capital or operating expenses to establish and maintain the proposed project before the initial harvest.

Results: an Integrated Biomass Feedstock Supply Industry in the Lachlan Shire

Integration of Mallee on farms

This project proposal is to grow Mallee as a crop that is harvested every three years, after the initial five year harvest (this will vary per harvesting cycle on annual infield rainfall). The growing of Mallee can be integrated on farms to complement the current rotational farming practice of block plantings as a stand-alone tree crop. On non-farming paddocks, block plantings of Mallee will realise gross margins in excess of $80 per field ha.

Testing of Mallee species

There has been extensive testing of Mallee species in Western Australia and, more recently, in Central West New South Wales. This experience, combined with the comparative assessment of climate and soil conditions in the project area, indicates that Eucalyptus polybractea (Blue Mallee) and a versatile Western Australian native species E. loxophleba spp lissophloia (Smooth Bark York Gum) should be the major species used. Programs for genetic improvement of both species are well advanced in Western Australia and orchard seed suitable for planting in the project area is available.

Design on-farm systems

Field establishment is a mature practice and costs about $1,500 per planted hectare. There has been considerable testing of planting density in Western Australia and additional research in New South Wales indicates that a two row belt configuration should be adopted. Mallee requires little routine management input once established. It is quite tolerant of grazing systems (except newly planted seedlings) and does not require expensive fencing to make dispersed belt planting viable in existing grazing/farming systems (after establishment period). It is clear that the major factor affecting yield will be available water. Based on both the Western Australian and New South Wales research undertaken, narrow belt systems demonstrate a strong yield advantage over plantations and Aurora’s own trials have shown this to be the case in Central West New South Wales.

Project harvesting plans

As an example, a 10 megawatt power station would require 5,000 planted hectares which would equate to 6.25 million trees sequentially planted for a three year harvest cycle. The end use options will ultimately determine project planning and planting cycles.

Planting schedule

There are two methods:

1. Each site has one third of the trees planted on-farm in the first year, one third in the second year and one third in the third year. This will enable the owner to have a regular annual income plus the continual benefits of tree cover on the property.

2. One single large player could have specific sites that equates to one year harvest, two year harvest and three year harvest. (Three separate blocks that are completely harvested in their cycles or just one block harvested every three to four years).

Harvest tonnage by years

If planted in 2013, the first harvest would be expected in five years (2018). From the first harvest onwards, it is estimated, at 18gt per planted ha per year for 5,000 hectares. This will equate to 54 tonnes per ha at harvest (a yield of 90,000gt tonnes per harvest would be expected from 1,666 ha).

Fuel specification requirements

It is expected that the standard fuel specifications from Mallee for co-firing or stand- alone biomass will be approximately:

• Specific Energy, minimum 12 MJ/kg (green tonne basis) (or 18MJ/kg dry basis) • Ash, < 5% by weight • Moisture, < 55% by weight.

Below ground carbon

It has been estimated that, at claim levels of 100%, the carbon sequestration benefits will generate carbon revenue through the sale of Australian Carbon Credit unit (ACCUs) sufficient enough to repay the entire capital outlay required within seven to eight years. This means establishment costs can be offset by Future Project Proponents through Carbon Accounting of the residual carbon pool, which now has a value under the Carbon Farming Initiative (assuming an appropriate methodology is approved by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee).

Conceptual design of production systems for the project area

Three conceptual design objectives for belt planting were identified:

• arrange layouts to facilitate water capture

• exploit low opportunity cost land

• maximise collateral benefits.

These were used as themes to outline a design of Mallee belt systems to provide the context for good yields, low costs and more sustainable agriculture in the project region.

On generally flat land (most of the target area), the scope for capture of lateral water flow is limited. Therefore, water capture design has to focus on the potential to gain water from leakage along irrigation channels, from tail drain areas, and areas where shallow groundwater has accumulated. Irrigation channels also present an attractive target for utilisation of low opportunity cost land. Along with farm roads, fences and strips of land stranded between them, the typical farm may provide enough low opportunity cost land to make a 10% planting area target realistic.

Implications

Industry

The advent of a biomass industry could complement farming systems in the inland grain belt regions. Income from harvested biomass plus carbon credits will be more reliable than grain cropping, which is weather dependant and has shown variable returns over the last decade. Farmers could also benefit from the collateral benefits of wind breaks and stock shelter belts. In some instances non-farmed land may be suitable for tree belts to improve farm productivity.

Potential end users, for example electricity generators, could also benefit by having feedstock from a base load renewable source which will assist in satisfying future legislative requirements.

Communities

The development of a biomass industry could assist regional service providers, engineers, contractors, manufacturers, transporters and labour services, plus flow-on benefits to towns.

Regional infrastructure could be developed with significant regional labour being required for both on- farm crop establishment and processing.

Opportunities could develop for skilled training providers as well as professional opportunities in processing areas, specialised engineering and agronomy.

Policy makers

This project is relevant to federal, state and local government policies addressing combatting carbon and climate change initiatives, sustainable farming practices and encouraging regional development.

Other

This project could provide a template for other grain growing regions in Australia looking at diversifying farm income opportunities and creating regional development.

In summary:

• The land in the Lachlan and surrounding shires is suitable for the establishment of Mallee trees to develop a biomass supply chain

• The estimated growth rates (based on Western Australian and New South Wales data) will be in the order of 18 g/t per planted ha per year

• The land within the project area lends itself to a number of options for planting because of the larger land holdings present

• The road infrastructure and location provides for transport and logistics efficiencies

• There are suitable areas for the establishment of manufacturing/processing plants

• There is opportunity to aggregate farmers across the region to provide feedstock for a supply chain

• There are a number of end uses of Mallee biomass that can be contemplated, for example, supplying wood pellets or torrefied fraction to electricity generators, stand- alone biomass generation, steel manufacturing and liquid fuel manufacturing

• There is an opportunity for below ground sequestered carbon from the Mallee plantings to provide further income

• There is the technology and systems available to undertake large scale plantings of Mallee.

Recommendations

The recommendations outlined below are targeted for farmers, communities and local government areas, to assist in supporting the establishment of a future biomass supply chain:

• Continue discussions with existing and potential new investors and end users

• Determine project management system liaising between all stakeholders to optimise potential project outcomes

• Continue to monitor and record findings from the Delta Electricity trial

• Continue to compare harvesting methodologies, for example, bailer versus continuous flow harvesting systems, and consequent handling methods

• Detailed comparison of existing and potential mechanical planting systems including polymer/water injection

• Upon confirmation of investment, need to formalise growing areas including full site evaluations

• Assessment of commercially proven biomass conversion technologies to meet investor requirements

• Evaluation of emerging processing and enhancement technologies

• Continued communication/liaison with those involved and researchers regarding transport and handling logistics

• Continue investment in harvesting technology to maximise harvesting rates

• Monitor success and progress regarding the implementation and adoption of the Clean Energy Bill

• Develop full Business Case for assessment by identified funding partners

• Develop public partnership options for project commercialisation.

Appendices

Appendix A – Farmer Engagement, Information Handouts and Field Day Presentations

Appendix B – Delta Field Trail Measurements

Appendix A

Invitation

Information Flyer

Field day presentations

Appendix B

B- Delta Electricity Trial Measurements

DARCYS plot 1 POLY plot 4 POLY plot 2 LOX LOX plot 3 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 Row 1 Row 2 Tree BASE(mm) HEIGHT(M) SPREAD(M) BASE HEIGHT SPREAD Base mm Height m Spread BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE HEIGHT SPREAD BASE HEIGHT SPREAD Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m 1 12.7 1.04 0.84 8.4 0.77 0.57 17.8 1.59 1.2 17.2 1.18 0.98 27.7 1.76 1.56 18 0.91 1.3 15.8 0.79 0.9 19.5 1.07 1.05 2 16.9 1.24 0.78 13.2 0.79 0.76 11.2 0.72 0.36 21.5 1.42 1.53 19.5 1.36 1.09 13.1 0.62 0.61 17 0.96 1.05 3 7.7 0.71 0.64 8.1 0.76 0.67 17 1.18 0.79 15.8 1.1 0.81 9.7 0.55 0.45 25.8 1.16 1.1 17.6 0.59 1 18 1.15 1.1 4 6.1 0.41 0.44 10.3 0.87 0.84 22.8 0.92 1.03 15.5 1.15 1.02 6.6 0.55 0.43 12.7 0.74 0.61 25.4 1.5 1.3 34.1 1.59 1.34 5 13.1 0.9 0.76 18.7 1.18 1.09 22.7 1.42 1 12.8 0.77 1.11 12.5 0.8 0.68 22.4 1.12 1.06 19.5 0.95 1 23.9 1.14 1.31 6 12 1.05 0.5 11.8 0.82 0.95 13 1.18 0.63 18.5 1.02 1.03 22.9 1.2 1.16 17.6 0.62 1.05 82.2 1.42 1.41 7 16.5 1.27 1.1 14.7 0.87 0.91 13.5 1.16 0.93 22.2 1.24 1.22 14.8 0.95 0.98 7.7 0.58 0.4 14.3 0.5 0.61 25.7 1.05 1.22 8 17.1 1.12 1.09 8 0.56 0.62 18 1.09 1.1 6.2 0.38 0.4 12.4 0.95 1.03 16.6 1 0.68 16.8 0.94 1.08 9 15.4 1.29 1.02 5.6 0.21 0.2 17.2 1.11 0.84 6.8 0.43 0.32 11 0.82 0.77 8.6 0.53 0.44 15 0.98 0.86 16.7 1 0.75 10 14.6 1.05 1.12 16 1.02 1.03 8.7 0.98 0.73 32.5 1.49 1.24 14 1.1 0.8 10.6 0.83 0.56 33.5 1.69 1.45 11 6.4 0.69 0.48 6.7 0.84 0.64 16.9 1.22 1.09 32.3 1.38 1.33 10.7 0.62 0.73 15.7 0.92 1.01 15.9 0.66 0.54 14.6 0.6 1.03 12 19.1 0.88 0.85 15 1.03 1 15.6 1.42 0.92 4.3 0.34 0.64 10 0.21 0.65 12.9 0.96 0.86 23.8 1.6 1.2 29.7 1.55 1.05 13 10.7 0.97 0.73 16.1 1.1 0.97 9.3 0.71 0.41 17.3 0.9 0.92 10 0.79 0.8 29.3 1.49 1.41 9.1 0.56 0.56 14 13.1 1.06 0.88 11.5 1.03 0.91 16.7 1.3 1.31 9.8 1.02 0.78 18.4 1.01 0.69 12.7 0.72 0.66 15 5.7 1.05 0.06 15 0.95 1.1 21.9 0.94 1.05 18 1.11 0.92 16.4 0.95 1.03 14.1 1.06 1 25.1 1.13 1.11 16 19.9 1.27 1.13 13.4 0.79 0.84 17 1.21 0.92 35.6 1.32 0.79 16.7 0.98 1. 02 4.9 0.37 0.29 12.1 0.82 0.56 13.2 0.59 0.78 17 12.8 0.92 1 14.1 0.98 1 15.3 1 1.6 13.7 1.01 0.75 18.4 0.89 1.18 11 0.83 0.68 16.3 1.05 0.93 23.2 1.55 1.18 18 8.9 0.73 0.57 13.5 0.83 0.73 20.5 0.92 0.9 14.8 1.19 1.21 13.4 1.07 0.89 17.4 0.94 0.87 24.5 1.09 1.12 19 14.1 0.84 0.72 16.1 0.88 0.86 9.6 0.89 0.26 15 1.13 0.82 25.3 1.15 1.04 11.8 1.01 0.8 14.2 0.65 0.85 21.2 1.23 1.3 20 14.5 1.11 0.91 12.4 1.03 1.05 15.8 1.13 0.99 13.1 0.75 0.95 14.9 . 0.56 16 1.06 1.01 21 14.2 1.01 1.09 20 1.4 0.86 13.6 0.89 0.61 16.7 0.84 1.05 25.2 1 1.03 10 0.57 0.35 21.5 1.4 1 22 16.2 0.69 0.79 9 1 0.39 17.9 0.94 0.2 17.1 0.74 1.02 25.6 1.14 1.12 25.5 1.43 1.35 23 8.5 0.52 0.55 16.7 0.99 0.74 14.5 1.19 0.86 16.2 0.89 0.76 24.2 1.41 0.92 24 11.5 0.94 0.78 3.2 0.12 0.29 12.7 0.54 0.65 12.3 0.35 0.79 25 8.5 0.5 0.62 26.2 1.29 0.89 15.3 0.91 0.93 18.6 0.89 1.05 26 12.6 1.03 0.91 18.4 1.19 0.72 27 10 0.99 0.42 28 AVER. 12.58 0.93 0.77 12.51 0.87 0.85 16.14 1.13 0.88 16.69 1.02 0.85 14.95 0.87 0.88 14.66 0.87 0.83 17.15 0.91 0.85 23.41 1.11 1.07

Poly Lox Poly Lox 1.04 1.76 Darcys Poly(1) v's Lox(2) 1.18 1.07 1.24 1.36 2 1.42 0 0.71 0.55 1.8 1.1 1.15 Darcys Poly (4) v's Lox (3) 1.8 0.41 0.55 1.6 1.15 1.59 1.6 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.77 1.14 1.05 0 1.2 1.02 1.42 1.4 1.27 0.95 1 Poly 1.24 1.05 1.2

1.12 0.38 Heght m 1.09 0.94 1 0.8 Lox 1.29 0.82 0.6 0.43 1 0.8 Poly Height m 1.05 1.1 0.4 1.49 1.69 0.6 Lox 0.69 0.62 0.2 1.38 0.6 0.4 0.88 0.21 0 0.34 1.55 0.2 0.97 0.9 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 0.71 0.56 0 1.06 0 1.02 0.72 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 1.05 0.95 1.11 1.13 1.27 0.98 1.32 0.59 0.92 0.89 1.01 1.55 0.73 1.07 1.19 1.09 0.84 1.15 1.13 1.23 1.11 0 0.75 1.06 0 0.84 0.89 1.4 0.69 0.74 0.94 1.43 0.52 1.19 1.41 0.94 0.12 0.35 0.5 1.29 0.89 1.03 1.19 0.99 68

DUFFS POLY PLOT 2 POLY PLOT 4 LOX PLOT 1 LOX PLOT 3 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m 18.4 1.02 1.31 14.8 0.84 1.08 14.5 0.91 0.7 10.3 0.54 0.57 30.2 0.99 1.05 12.7 1.01 0.9 15 0.55 1.64 15 0.61 0.74 25 1.27 1.32 21.6 1.73 1.2 13 0.97 0.8 13.3 0.76 0.97 25 0.97 1.2 17.9 1.07 0.91 20.9 0.85 0.78 21.9 1.05 0.95 25.9 1.34 1.32 28.3 1.51 1.31 20.2 0.98 0.82 19.7 1.23 0.83 26.4 1.91 1.25 25.4 1.55 1.21 25.1 1.14 0.96 32.8 1.02 1.05 30.4 2.01 1.27 16.2 1.05 1.25 14.3 0.76 0.9 18.9 1.05 1.05 32.5 1.97 1.57 11.2 0.81 0.67 18.4 0.65 0.58 28.2 0.84 0.99 24.7 1.74 1.41 29.4 1.42 1.43 17.2 0.93 1 0.3 0.81 0.74 24.2 1.21 1.02 23.5 1.62 1.19 24.3 0.67 0.84 23.2 0.83 1.04 26.1 1.56 1.48 28.6 1.67 1.35 15.3 1.1 0.82 14.4 1.03 0.86 21.8 1.41 1.08 25.6 1.74 1.41 36.6 0.67 0.95 20.4 1.43 1.11 24.4 1.39 1.64 18 0.89 0.79 14.5 0.94 0.67 20.1 1.37 1.18 21.8 1.57 1.06 12.9 0.73 1.01 25.6 0.91 1 20.4 1.58 1.33 20.2 1.03 0.92 15.2 0.46 1.02 31.4 1.32 1.22 19.5 1.34 1.36 10.5 0.53 0.77 23.3 0.87 1.02 26.7 1.34 1.37 24.1 1.11 1.56 17.4 0.97 0.78 10.8 0.6 0.67 24.2 1.41 1.6 20.2 1.46 1.18 29.2 0.91 1.04 9 0.33 0.43 31.5 1.28 1.33 28.9 1.35 1.3 17 0.99 1.15 15.6 1.11 0.6 22.1 1.56 1.17 32 1.57 1.39 15.6 0.89 0.81 25.7 0.91 0.96 14.7 1.16 1.11 24.4 1.52 1.54 15.9 0.78 0.77 17.4 1.23 0.99 24.1 1.68 1.26 31.8 1.84 1.34 24.2 1.08 1.09 28 0.93 1.02 26.7 2.07 1.27 37.7 1.98 1.25 10.2 0.84 0.68 18 1.13 1.16 22.7 1.48 1.22 21.5 1.51 1.11 20.6 0.86 0.88 10.5 0.43 0.5 25.5 1.56 1.33 22.9 1.37 1.24 16 1.29 0.67 15.6 1.1 0.95 23.4 1.51 1.14 16.8 0.77 0.7 21.2 1.05 0.85 19.3 1.02 1.08 25.1 2.02 1.41 19.5 1.11 0.84 19.8 0.87 0.92 29.2 1.65 1.2 22.6 0.97 1.31 16.7 0.85 1.19 27.7 1.01 1.27 33.3 1.78 2.02 22.4 1.73 1.37 18.2 1.12 1.12 3.1 0.26 0.45 24.9 1.36 1 17.5 1.12 1 22.4 1.54 1.11 19.5 1.57 1.28 19.6 1.37 1.08 17.4 0.89 0.83 22.3 1.55 1.06 8. 5 0.76 0.75 12.3 0.96 0.99 21.2 0.81 0.8 15.5 1 1.22 32 1.53 1.6 10.1 0.95 0.66 21.2 1.5 1.05 23.7 1.77 1.47 24.5 1.44 1.33 19.6 0.75 0.87 12.4 0.53 0.46 32 1.87 1.29 27.1 1.67 1.4 22.6 1.39 0.84 10.5 0.6 0.89 21.7 1.32 1.39 23.1 1.5 1.27 4 0.36 0.3 22 1.08 1.48 20.5 1.69 1.15 18.1 1.38 1 21.6 1.11 1 13.3 0.71 0.67 12.7 0.67 0.7 18.6 1.16 1.06 18.8 1.12 1.17 23.7 1.09 1.35 22.3 1.77 1.42 13.4 1.01 0.78 16.1 1.16 0.95 18.3 1.03 1 19.6 1.03 1.2 15.6 0.63 0.8 31.1 1.11 1.28 14.8 1.39 1.09 26.4 1.51 1.24 10.8 0.72 0.75 21.2 1.7 1.42 26.9 1.1 1.224 23.4 1.34 0.82 9.7 0.79 0.9 18.9 1.05 0.95 30 1.48 1.12 27.5 1 1.08 8.1 0.43 0.74 14.2 0.8 0.53 17.8 1.11 1.34 16.8 1.2 0.85 25.3 1.49 1.31 8.4 0.41 0.64 21.6 0.87 0.89 6.1 0.67 0.53 16.5 1.3 0.87 22.7 1.41 1.11 15 1.24 1.2 23.4 1.45 0.83 5.3 0.62 0.58 12 0.71 0.63 23.3 1.35 1.16 23 1.48 1.16 20.7 1.17 1.08 22.99 1.47 1.26 21.80 1.35 1.23 16.85 1.03 0.86 14.42 0.92 0.84 23.75 1.40 1.16 20.88 1.30 1.12 18.42 0.83 0.93 22.29 0.85 0.95

RIDLEYS LOX PLOT 2 LOX PLOT 4 POLY PLOT 1 POLY PLOT 3 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m 31.1 1.62 1.36 20.8 1.32 1.51 19.7 0.97 0.87 29.5 1.78 1.34 18 1.34 1.2 19 1.2 1.35 17.6 0.98 1 19.7 0.95 0.94 18.5 1.12 1.21 26.3 1.83 1 25.8 1.69 1.11 32 1.99 1.32 24.9 1.48 1.3 27 1.63 1.48 20.7 1.29 1.33 21 1.51 0.93 23 1.23 1.06 33.9 2.29 1.68 26 1.34 1.18 29.2 1.5 1.43 22.5 1.35 1.8 17.7 1.35 1.15 17.2 1.08 1.29 12 0.93 0.95 27.6 1.61 1.41 32 1.5 1.55 16.2 0.94 0.91 44.4 1.68 1.18 21.8 1.45 1.1 20.2 1.63 1.25 24.1 1.67 1.34 24.6 1.72 1.31 29.8 1.27 1.12 23.9 1.67 1.57 16.6 0.98 0.98 24.7 1.48 1.2 24.8 1.55 1.19 14.7 0.87 0.92 20.2 1.01 1 23.2 1.87 1.57 41.6 2.25 1.6 27 1.78 1.09 21.4 1.26 1.23 18.9 1.49 1.5 24.1 1.75 1.55 18.2 0.98 1 19.4 1.31 1.08 18.8 1.08 1.1 25.9 1.32 1.24 10.8 0.85 0.61 31.6 1.48 1.33 17.3 1 1.12 15.5 1.15 1.35 23.2 1.26 1.26 18.6 0.96 1 27.6 1.21 1.3 28.7 1 1.42 19.6 0.89 0.74 8.9 0.32 0.59 18.9 1.61 1.29 10.7 0.92 0.65 17.7 1.45 1.34 21.5 1.24 1 25.1 1.41 1.36 27.6 1.37 1.21 19.3 1.46 0.85 23.2 1.52 1.68 24.7 1.86 1.42 15.2 1.16 1.3 17.3 0.95 1.05 18.5 1.27 1.52 24.4 1.44 1.12 36.5 1.52 1.7 32.6 2.07 1.32 25.3 1.93 1.47 32.1 1.45 1.3 26.7 1.19 1.35 18 0.96 0.98 20.4 1.04 1.06 37.7 2 1.85 18 1.2 0.74 30.2 1.61 1.09 5.4 0.31 0.47 11.6 0.67 0.63 11.7 1.34 1.32 10.8 0.73 0.38 21 1.51 1.15 23.6 1.34 1.11 19.6 1.19 1 18.9 0.92 1.05 11.1 0.62 0.81 26.6 1.74 1.18 22.6 0.94 1.18 19.3 0.81 0.75 28 1.66 1.37 18.6 1.14 1.19 20.9 1.05 0.85 20.4 1.54 0.96 23 1.59 1.52 14.5 0.8 1.2 19.6 1.05 0.84 27.4 1.02 1.27 22.8 1.35 1.38 28.3 1.53 1.47 8.6 0.56 0.41 25.3 1.52 1.06 24.9 1.52 1.42 26.5 2 1.7 14 1 1.26 23.9 1.51 1.2 22.5 1.19 1.15 22.6 1.49 2 16.4 0.9 0.71 25.9 1.62 1.38 27.5 1.26 1.44 17 1.11 0.77 21.1 1.21 0.92 19.1 1.33 1.12 25.1 0.96 1.63 21.4 1.38 1.08 17.1 1.48 1.13 35.7 1.92 1.02 20.7 1.6 1.08 24.2 1.62 1.4 18 0.92 1.17 18.3 1.13 1.08 28.8 1.36 1.4 15.1 0.58 1.16 20.1 1.52 1.02 30.8 1.45 1.23 24 1.27 1.42 18.7 1.13 1.08 22.2 1.03 0.89 27.1 1.13 1.58 31.8 0.68 1.25 25.8 1.59 1.29 17.2 0.63 0.68 28.1 1.35 1.26 17.4 0.95 0.86 21.5 1.2 1.09 27.5 1.11 1.39 27.7 1.3 1.11 9.8 0.47 0.49 20.3 1.07 1 25.5 1.08 1 12 0.68 0.88 22.5 1.31 1.24 28.8 1.5 1.67 31 1.32 1.36 28.4 1.78 1.09 34.6 1.82 1.46 19.8 1.51 1.45 24 1.72 1.33 22.1 1.28 1.52 34.3 1.7 1.64 28.3 1.19 1 27.2 1.5 1.26 25.6 1.18 1.27 15.2 0.85 0.92 21.15 1.35 1.21 18.91 1.11 1.14 15.3 1.29 1 25.22 1.31 1.30 16.8 0.81 1.45 22.6 1.33 1.05 23.9 1.12 1.3 28.3 1.42 1.64 23.4 1.37 1.02 13.5 0.66 0.92 21.1 1.34 1.36 35.4 1.81 1.37 22.4 1.26 1.18 17.3 1.09 0.9 26.63 1.40 1.36 19.8 0.85 1.18 25.94 1.38 1.16 23.2 1.39 1.29 20.60 1.19 1.09 25.7 1.41 1.25 21.30 1.37 1.29 25.8 1.27 1.56 20.82 1.25 1.01

C. JONES LOX PLOT 1 POLY PLOT 2 Lox Poly ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 0.64 0.36 BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m BASE mm Height m Spread m 0 0.76 16.5 0.64 0.81 9 0.36 0.46 18.1 0.94 0.71 0.84 1.05 8.6 0.42 0.34 11.6 0.76 0.97 17 0.96 1.05 0.77 0.85 15.2 0.84 0.82 11 0.86 0.5 18 1.05 1.07 14.5 1.01 1.02 0.46 1.05 21.5 0.77 0.75 11.2 0.53 0.73 14 0.85 0.65 19 1.45 0.82 0.61 1 8.8 0.46 0.37 13.4 0.42 0.54 26.3 1.05 1.08 15 1.11 1.2 0.64 0.58 14.4 0.61 0.72 18.2 0.59 1.05 14.2 1 1.12 22.2 1 0.88 0.68 0.83 11.5 0.64 0.73 16.9 0.81 0.95 8.6 0.58 0.5 18.6 0.84 0.69 1 0.69 14.9 0.68 0.85 13.8 0.75 0.66 16.6 0.83 1 11.4 0.64 0.81 0.77 1.04 23.8 1 1.05 11 0.69 0.87 8.7 0.62 0.68 1.05 1.02 15.2 0.77 0.67 28.6 1.01 1.4 18.8 1.04 0.95 15.4 1 1 0.87 0 26.8 1.05 1.2 17.8 1.02 1 13.4 0.98 0.97 1.13 1.14 21.8 0.87 0.87 9.2 0.55 0.76 20.6 0.96 1.02 1.12 1.23 27.7 1.13 1.05 22.9 1.14 1.2 8.7 0.65 0.88 0.69 1.2 24.7 1.12 1.45 12.4 0.65 0.65 22.8 1.23 0.88 18.6 0.91 1.05 1.12 1.92 11.3 0.69 0.48 16.7 0.94 1.07 16.3 1.2 1.14 13.4 0.75 0.74 0.75 1.18 26.3 1.12 1.17 23.5 1.07 1.05 22.4 1.92 1.35 12.8 0.82 0.74 0.41 0.66 18.1 0.75 1.05 24.2 1.18 1.05 13.9 1.03 0.8 0.83 1.05 6.7 0.41 0.42 22.8 0.89 1.1 20 0.66 0.86 21 1.19 0.9 1.2 0.05 11.2 0.83 0.68 22.2 1.05 1.05 6.8 0.26 0.33 0.77 1.34 20.7 1.2 1.05 17 0.88 0.72 5.4 0.05 0.28 0.63 1.48 21.9 0.77 1.05 12.6 0.59 0.5 22.9 1.34 1.23 14.8 0.84 0.62 0.8 0.91 19.7 0.63 0.63 14.8 0.69 0.75 22.3 1.48 1.47 18.3 0.96 0.79 0 0.93 18.2 0.8 0.87 17.6 1.1 0.9 23.4 0.91 1.12 10.3 0.59 0.33 29.2 0.93 1.22 15.2 0.79 0.95 12.3 0.64 0.53 15.5 1.01 1.2 22 0.96 1 22.6 1.12 1 18.04 0.81 0.85 15.78 0.75 0.80 18.26 0.97 0.98 15.56 0.89 0.84

C. Jones Lox v's Poly 2.5

1.5 Lox

Axis Title 1 Poly

0.5

0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23

Graham Jones LOX PLOT 1 Sheep in paddock LOX PLOT 2 Heavier soil ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m 10.9 0.76 0.6 5.9 0.39 0.39 11.3 0.55 0.33 10.9 0.9 0.49 7.5 0.55 0.63 6.2 0.53 0.38 3.9 0.4 0.17 7.7 0.73 0.34 9.2 0.68 0.52 6.7 0.61 0.5 6.7 0.63 0.43 9.7 0.84 0.36 5.9 0.41 0.47 5.2 0.41 0.42 9 0.54 0.18 9.4 0.63 0.29 10.3 0.36 0.92 4.8 0.47 0.26 4.8 0.58 0.14 8.4 0.66 0.36 4.6 0.17 0.44 7.6 0.64 0.36 2.5 0.37 0.12 6.6 0.52 0.13 5.8 0.41 0.35 7.3 0.54 0.38 3.4 0.27 0.18 7.1 0.59 0.19 7.5 0.34 0.21 10.3 0.63 0.64 4.6 0.3 0.21 4.4 0.48 0.14 5.4 0.43 0.31 9.5 0.8 0.52 8.5 0.63 0.39 9.7 0.87 0.59 6.4 0.63 0.54 6.8 0.64 0.36 5.1 0.48 0.25 6.5 0.52 0.39 5.7 0.52 0.21 9.8 0.69 0.37 7.7 0.8 0.23 9.4 0.77 0.48 9.6 0.51 0.44 4.2 0.46 0.15 7.8 0.65 0.5 8.1 0.53 0.34 6.6 0.65 0.22 9.4 0.64 0.51 8.5 0.71 0.57 11.5 0.77 0.33 8.8 0.49 0.62 7.5 0.62 0.45 4 0.37 0.09 11.3 0.91 0.43 7.5 0.65 0.54 7.5 0.43 0.49 6.8 0.69 0.28 8.7 0.74 0.38 7 0.44 0.55 13 0.93 0.78 7.1 0.65 0.23 9.6 0.79 0.47 6.1 0.38 0.43 2.8 0.24 0.09 8.7 0.79 0.42 6.4 0.49 0.49 10.5 0.89 0.87 6.4 0.68 0.32 7.4 0.77 0.58 3.6 0.36 0.37 7.4 0.67 0.41 3.8 0.25 0.42 10.9 0.69 0.52 9.6 0.56 0.39 9.1 0.73 0.48 6.3 0.43 0.55

7.47 0.52 0.49 7.53 0.59 0.46 6.58 0.53 0.27 8.06 0.70 0.32

D. Lander W. Lander PLOT 1 W. LanderPLOT 2 LOX PLOT 1 Only 1 spray, no simazine, waterlogged for months. LOX LISS POLY B ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m 13.9 1.02 1.05 17 1 1 27.3 0.9 1.1 8.1 0.69 0.5 7.7 0.8 0.27 4.4 0.6 0.18 19.7 1.2 1.11 18.7 1.19 1 14.8 0.89 0.77 10.2 0.3 0.43 13.9 0.8 0.68 12.6 0.75 0.47 24.2 1.47 1.1 20.2 1.97 1 9.3 0.72 0.52 15.3 1.24 0.93 7.3 0.61 0.36 10.1 0.69 0.27 23.6 1.69 1.1 18.1 1.3 1 5.6 0.56 0.58 22.9 1.52 1.05 25.8 1.02 1.5 8.2 0.58 0.27 17.1 1 0.73 11.9 0.77 0.66 8.9 0.67 0.45 16.2 0.97 0.82 24.6 1.45 1.1 11.1 0.73 0.63 5.1 0.3 0.3 8.5 0.62 0.34 21.6 0.59 0.59 6.2 0.62 0.3 23.8 1.4 1.2 12.5 0.87 0.78 9.6 0.75 0.74 17.2 0.76 0.58 10.5 0.58 0.48 30.8 1.15 1.2 9.1 0.73 0.8 5.7 0.53 0.18 8.3 0.58 0.5 23.5 1.46 1.4 13.6 0.84 0.69 9.6 0.62 0.57 9.5 0.64 0.7 10.1 0.83 0.86 18.3 1.27 0.87 18.5 1.02 1 18.2 1.48 1.15 16.8 1.08 1 4.4 0.57 0.46 3.4 0.33 0.22 14.5 1.03 1 11.8 1 1.47 16.2 0.95 0.75 13.5 0.97 0.75 7.7 0.71 0.24 22.8 1.35 1.15 3.2 0.34 0.09 3.8 0.48 0.17 10.3 0.72 0.58 10.5 0.8 0.65 16.7 0.97 0.4 14.1 0.92 0.75 2.3 0.24 0.08 6.5 0.34 0.19 7.1 0.65 0.28 7.5 0.66 0.51 20.2 1.44 1.1 23.8 1.6 1.1 12.2 0.92 0.54 14.6 0.67 0.6 6 0.63 0.37 7.8 0.65 0.37 20.6 1.21 1 17.9 1.07 1 10.9 0.9 0.72 12 0.79 0.6 7.8 0.78 0.51 8.4 0.77 0.52 16.4 1.03 1 9.1 0.75 0.69 9.1 0.86 0.58 7 0.58 0.27 5.6 0.55 0.34 25.4 1.52 1.56 6.1 0.49 0.25 17.6 0.85 0.57 22 1.1 1.05 11.8 0.85 0.8 6.1 0.62 0.18 10.6 0.69 0.27 20.9 0.84 1.07 7.9 0.84 0.78 7.7 0.67 0.39 4.2 0.35 0.15 6.2 0.74 0.36 4.1 0.59 0.15 9 0.63 0.46 17.5 1.17 0.79 9.4 0.65 0.66 6.7 0.56 0.34 5.3 0.59 0.37 16.5 1.57 1.27 10.7 0.77 0.6 13.5 0.75 0.7 5.3 0.57 0.35 16 1.31 0.82 22 0.98 1.07 7.4 0.72 0.44 11.7 1.07 0.6 16.8 1.15 0.93 16.23 1.09 0.83 19.13 1.13 1.00 11.49 0.80 0.69 11.08 0.73 0.61 8.04 0.68 0.44 9.11 0.66 0.42

Light Heavy 1.02 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.47 0.61 1.69 0.56 1.52 0.77 Light soil v's Heavy soil 0.97 0.62 1.8 0.62 0 1.6 0. 58 0 1.4 0. 58 0.64 1.2 1.27 0.57 0.33 0.97 1 Light 1.35 0.72 Height 0.8 Heavy 0.97 0.65 0.6 1.44 0.63 0.4 1.21 0.78 0.2 1.03 0.58 0 1.52 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 0.85 0.62 0 0 0.35 0.59 1.17 0.56 1.57 0 1.31 0.72 1.07 1.15 73

G. TOM POLY PLOT 1 POLY PLOT 3 LOX GRAXIE PLOT 2 LOX LIS PLOT 4 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m 22.1 0.87 0.83 18.8 1.15 0.85 22.2 1.18 1 14.9 0.54 1.15 10.9 0.52 0.32 18.6 1.17 0.9 13 0.65 0.72 18.4 0.97 0.47 18 1 0.83 20 0.92 1.1 21.2 1.29 1.28 18.2 1.08 0.94 10.2 0.84 0.58 7.4 0.69 0.65 9.3 0.79 0.39 6.2 0.37 0.42 8.4 0.71 0.7 17.4 0.45 1 14 0.78 0.67 10.8 0.96 0.56 25.1 1.25 1.05 20.7 1.6 1.15 24.2 1.46 1.4 15.8 1.07 0.7 23.9 1.68 1.17 18 1.11 1 20.6 0.96 1.05 29.8 1.05 1.05 21.7 1.45 1 21.9 0.96 1.2 18 1.12 1.05 24.3 1.1 1.15 11.9 0.75 0.56 16.3 1.19 0.61 27.4 1.36 1.17 26 1.05 1.1 14.2 1.42 0.87 5.8 0.25 0.34 18 1.05 1 10 0.69 0.76 15.9 1.33 1 12.9 1.02 0.52 20 1.07 0.96 17.8 1 1.05 14 1.05 0.77 10 0.63 0.87 13.3 0.8 0.78 23.3 0.99 1 20.8 1.45 1.18 7.2 0.34 0.59 29.8 0.97 1 19.4 1.05 0.95 29.5 1.65 1.29 20 1.5 1.12 15.8 1 1.3 17.9 0.91 1 10.3 0.77 0.43 6.8 0.56 0.26 17.8 1.05 1.1 11.7 1.05 0.82 25.1 1.76 1.24 8.2 0.74 0.347 17.8 1.66 1 22.8 1.48 1.26 16.4 0.84 0.5 17.4 1 1.15 6.7 0.5 0.36 20.7 1.25 1.37 21.3 1.25 0.85 17.3 1.9 1.23 15.1 1.15 1.05 12.1 0.82 0.63 13.7 0.64 0.52 12.1 0.9 0.5 16.3 1.21 0.93 24.6 1.76 1.42 17 1 1.17 23.2 1.42 1.05 23.3 1.31 1.05 9.5 0.56 0.55 34.8 1.02 1.3 22.1 1.1 0.8 18.1 1.07 0.92 13.7 0.71 0.72 22.6 1.18 1.1 19.7 1.13 1.16 13.6 0.7 0.55 13 0.6 0.67 27.4 1.2 1.1 11.4 0.77 0.46 19.2 1.02 0.74 8.6 0.86 0.65 21.1 1.57 1.21 21.6 1.78 1.1 19.2 1.48 1 12.6 0.83 0.8 20.2 1.1 1 17 1.15 0.72 16.3 0.97 0.77 20.3 1.12 1.23 18.9 0.95 1.15 17.7 1.1 0.9 17.1 1.17 1 18.2 0.95 0.77 18.4 0.87 0.8 1 14.7 0.74 0.7 20.3 1.02 1.3 21.9 1.4 1.2 21.3 0.77 1 20.5 1.16 1.1 27.8 1.52 1.1 13.6 0.71 0.52 16.5 0.96 1.4 21.5 1.12 1.26 26.6 1.96 1.32 20 1.6 1.22 19.4 1.05 0.78 10 0.47 0.53 15 1.23 1.15 18.8 1.7 0.95 16.7 1.09 1.24 16.5 1.05 1.37 14.1 0.95 0. 92 17.6 1.4 1 16.2 1 0.76 22.3 1,09 1 16.9 1.38 0.79 18.9 1.62 1.2 9.8 0.76 1.2 25.4 1.63 1.58 22.4 1.47 1 15.3 1.13 1.05 20.8 1.02 0.96 13 0.97 0.65 22 1.3 0.83 24.7 1.97 1.25 15.7 0.75 1 23.9 1.68 1.45 22.4 1.5 1.6 18.2 1.13 1 22.7 1.02 1 10.1 0.78 0.38 18.4 0.96 0.62 11.3 0.9 0.42 13.2 0.65 1 21 1.1 1.1 12.4 0.78 0.78 14.4 1.04 1 34.3 0.92 1.42 17.7 1.24 0.81 22.8 1.48 1.35 17.7 1.06 1.15 10.1 0.68 0.69 7.8 0.56 0.59 16.4 1.2 1.06 21.3 0.76 0.7 13.4 1 0.65 10.2 0.88 0.87

21.75 1.10 0.94 15.46 1.17 0.84 16.97 0.97 1.00 17.96 1.14 1.04 19.54 1.18 1.11 16.51 1.12 0.92 16.26 1.01 0.79 15.60 0.79 0.75

POLY LOX G POLY LOX LISS 0.87 0.54 1.15 1.17 Tom's Poly(3) v's Lox Liss(4) 0.97 1.08 0.92 0.69 2 0 0.45 Tom's Poly(1) v's Lox G(2) 0.37 0.96 1.8 1.25 1.68 2.5 1.46 0 1.6 1.05 1.1 0.96 1.19 1.4 1.05 0.69 2 0.25 1.02 1.2 1 0.99 0.63 0 1 POLY

1.5 m Height 0.8 0.97 1 1.65 0.77 LOX LISS 1.05 1.66 POLY 1.76 0 0.6

1 1.9 Height m 1 LOX G 1.25 0.82 0.4 0.9 1 0 1.31 0.2 1.02 1.18 0.5 1.07 0.7 0 1.2 1.57 1.02 1.48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1.1 0.95 0 0.97 1.17 0.87 1.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0.74 0.77 1.52 1.96 0.96 1.05 1.23 0.95 1.09 1 1.38 1.47 0.76 1.02 1.3 1.5 0.75 1.02 0.96 1.1 0.65 1.04 1.24 1.06 0.76

COOPERS PLOT 1 POLY POLY PLOT 2 POLY PLOT 3 LOX PLOT 4 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m 14.9 0.91 1.02 19.5 0.94 0.81 21.4 1.14 0.97 7 0.48 0.64 16.1 0.8 0.6 20.9 1.24 1.02 21.5 1.59 1.19 22.4 1.42 0.99 14.5 1 0.72 11.1 0.98 0.56 17.8 1.07 0.75 14.5 0.84 0.91 15.2 0.93 0.76 13.2 0.81 0.66 20.9 1.32 1.3 23.7 1.43 1.05 4.3 0.92 0.16 14.3 1 0.42 15.4 1.15 0.62 12.6 0.89 0.64 18.5 0.94 1.03 12.6 0.87 0.79 24.8 1.33 1.09 28.6 1.29 1.24 7.9 0.57 0.64 10.1 0.77 0.59 21.4 1.21 0.92 16.3 1.03 0.92 24.8 1.74 1.47 10 0.55 0.73 10.3 0.97 0.74 8.6 0.75 0.63 18.7 1.08 0.42 16.2 1.05 0.96 14.5 1.2 1.04 27 1.26 0.99 12.1 0.86 0.9 12.3 0.81 0.85 14.8 1.13 0.75 20.9 1.1 0.88 18.8 0.86 0.67 14 0.87 0.72 4 0.17 0.12 28.8 1.71 1.48 14.6 0.85 0.78 12.7 0.66 0.83 5.2 0.53 0.33 15.9 1.19 0.83 16.3 1.14 0.79 11.9 0.8 0.84 7.1 0.67 0.46 31.7 1.74 1.49 32.7 0.97 1.37 10 0.87 0.78 15.8 0.98 0.81 16.9 1.13 0.91 9.6 0.76 0.68 10.4 0.74 0.59 25.1 1.5 1.38 10 0.49 0.64 6.9 0.48 0.36 13.8 0.68 0.73 9.7 0.6 0.82 3 0.3 0.21 31.7 1.34 1.26 22.7 1.51 1.28 7 0.4 0.26 23.2 1.58 0.82 3.8 0.56 0.21 14.1 0.81 0.75 12.6 0.96 0.52 7 0.47 0.49 21.4 1.91 1.37 18.5 0.94 1.02 16.6 1.25 0.87 14.3 0.87 0.5 16.8 1.27 0.73 7 0.52 0.34 19.5 0.99 1.02 9.9 0.57 0.69 19.8 1.02 0.82 9.7 0.63 0.61 15.8 1.06 1.1 15.2 0.89 0.69 19.1 1.11 1.15 13.4 0.92 0.81 18.8 1.05 0.95 8 0.66 0.32 10.8 0.77 0.64 6 0.32 0.96 11.3 0.6 0.76 5.8 0.45 0.35 14.5 0.85 0.75 12.4 0.89 0.72 14.4 0.81 0.59 11.8 0.67 0.46 14.9 1.05 0.76 13.9 1.16 0.69 23.8 1 1.54 17.9 1.2 1.02 9.7 0.29 0.59 15.7 1.21 0.76 6.6 0.42 0.41 2.3 0.33 0.41 18.9 1.49 1.02 23 1.46 1.08 18 1.22 0.84 9.5 0.8 0.65 11.4 0.81 0.72 13.6 0.63 0.59 11.3 0.89 0.66 22.8 1.18 1.03 11 0.75 0.62 28.3 1.68 1.48 25 1.11 1.05 21.3 1.09 0.91 19.2 1.23 0.97 19 1.22 1.28 14.3 0.88 0.83 9.6 1.06 0.68 25. 4 1.02 0.89 15.8 0.92 0.88 19.2 1.09 0.68 14.5 0.68 0.82 23.9 0.78 1.16 23.4 1.05 1.1 18.4 1.12 0.74 14 0.69 0.73 11.2 0.98 0.7 9.4 0.71 0.57 27.6 1.15 1.28 24.5 1.12 1.34 17.7 0.9 0.81 16 0.81 0.52 6.8 0.47 0.42 17.1 0.7 1.09 8 0.23 0.41 22.1 1.16 1.03 18.7 1.02 0.73 15.6 1.06 0.58 11.2 0.69 0.73 8.9 0.59 0.85 24.1 0.96 1 24.9 1.34 1.21 8.3 0.65 0.55 11.10 0.80 0.60 19.8 0.77 0.81 14 0.87 0.73 13.60 0.85 0.75 10.4 0.84 0.54 22.46 1.18 1.14 20.25 1.13 1.04 18.15 1.04 0.77 13.24 0.84 0.66 11.95 0.81 0.72

12.15 0.82 0.72 MASLIN PLOT 1 PLOT 2 Poly Lox LOX G POLY 1.14 1.59 ROW 1 ROW 2 ROW 1 ROW 2 1.07 1.32 Cooper's Poly(2) v's Lox(4) Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m Base mm Height m Spread m 1.15 1.33 2 5.6 0.63 0.19 4.5 0.54 0.2 9.2 0.77 0.58 5.2 0.72 0.59 0 1.74 1.8 5.5 0.49 0.21 5.8 0.55 0.36 6.1 0.48 0.64 1.08 1.26 1.6 9.3 0.75 0.32 5.3 0.56 0.2 2.8 0.23 0.09 1.1 1.71 1.4 3.9 0.26 0.4 2.8 0.46 0.45 1.19 1.74 1.2 8 0.48 0.56 4.5 0.53 0.39 0.98 0 1 Poly 8.1 0.73 0.51 6.8 0.58 0.41 4 0.61 0.46 0 1.34 6.1 0.49 0.26 8.5 0.72 0.47 2.3 0.34 0.16 Height m 0.8 Lox 1.58 0.47 0.6 6.8 0.51 0.4 6.1 0.47 0.55 4.6 0.43 0.23 0.87 0.99 0.4 6.5 0.65 0.18 6.9 0.65 0.47 6.6 0.75 0.42 5.3 0.72 0.43 1.06 1.11 0.2 4 0.48 0.16 6.9 0.59 0.37 5 0.71 0.19 1.05 0.6 0 4.6 0.3 0.4 5.8 0.65 0.37 4.9 0.67 0.37 0.81 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 8.3 0.64 0.28 2.8 0.42 0.21 3.2 0.4 0.19 1.21 1.46 6.5 0.65 0.32 1 0.17 0.07 0.63 1.68 8 0.47 0.22 5.4 0.64 0.47 1.09 0 4.2 0.47 0.18 1.02 0.78 7.9 0.49 0.27 3.7 0.46 0.27 5.8 0.57 0.51 4.8 0.74 0.38 1.12 1.15 6.3 0.64 0.31 7.3 0.48 0.55 3.7 0.29 0.26 6.7 0.63 0.57 0.9 0.23 6.6 0.61 0.3 6.4 0.52 0.37 4.2 0.73 0.19 1.6 0.19 0.13 1.02 0.96 4.2 0.54 0.42 5.4 0.57 0.32 4.2 0.47 0.52 0.77 4.1 0.35 0.11 5.45 0.55 0.38 6.54 0.57 0.29 4.8 0.46 0.25 3.9 0.5 0.24 5.8 0.49 0.17 5.4 0.74 0.45 6 0.53 0.33 3.99 0.52 0.35

HEIGHT(m) LOX POLY Average Heights(m) Ridleys 1.34 1.26 1.60 Coopers 1.155 0.860 1.40 Jones 0.78 0.93 1.20 W. Lander 0.77 0.67 1.00 Tom 1.003 1.095 0.80 Maslin 0.55 0.535 0.60 LOX 0.40 Duffs 1.10 1.19 POLY Darcys 0.940 0.988 0.20 D. Lander 1.195 0.00 G. Jones 0.585

BASE(mm) LOX POLY Average Base(mm) 30 Ridleys 24.65 20.49 Coopers 21.36 13.37 25 Jones 16.91 16.91 20 W. Lander 11.29 8.58 Tom 16.98 18.04 15 Maslin 6.27 4.72 10 LOX Duffs 21.34 19.02 5 POLY Darcys 17.54 14.48 D. Lander 17.68 0 G. Jones 7.41

SPREAD(m) LOX POLY

Ridleys 1.21 1.18 Coopers 1.09 0.7 Jones 0.83 0.91 Average Spread(m) W. 1.4 Lander 0.65 0.43 1.2 Tom 1 0.96 1 Maslin 0.31 0.37 Duffs 1.04 1.05 0.8 Darcys 0.91 0.84 0.6 LOX D. 0.4 Lander 0.92 POLY 0.2 G. Jones 0.39 0

References

Abadi A, (2011). Economics of SRC and Impact of Competition for Water Resources

Aurora Research, (2012). Biomass Supply Evaluation Tabbita Region, Murrumbidgee Irrigation

Bartle, J and Abadi A, (2010). Towards Sustainable Production of Second Generation Bioenergy Feedstocks, Energy Fuels.

Bartle, JR and Shea, SR, (2002). Development of Mallee as a large-scale crop for the wheat belt of WA, in Proceedings Australian Forest Growers 2002 National Conference: Private Forestry - Sustainable accountable and profitable pp 243-250.

Chun-Zhu Li, et al, (2011). Biofuels and Bioenergy from Mallee Biomass

Enecon (2001). Integrated Tree Processing of Mallee Eucalypts.

Larkin J, McMullen B (2011). Delta Electricity Trial Report

Oil Mallee Association (2003). Mallee cropping code of practice. JVAP http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/AFT/code_of_practice_final_version.pdf

Reilly T, (2010). A Two-Stream Renewable Energy Solution for Southern Murray Region

Schmidt E, Giles R, David r, Baillie C, Jensen T, Sandell G, and Norris C, (2011). Sustainable Biomass Supply Chain for the Mallee Woody Crop Industry

78 Integrated Biomass-Derived Power Generation in the Lachlan Shire by John Larkin and Bernard McMullen Pub. No. 14/052

Phone: 02 6271 4100 Fax: 02 6271 4199 Bookshop: 1300 634 313 Email: [email protected] Postal Address: PO Box 4776, Kingston ACT 2604 Street Address: Level 2, 15 National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600