The Crops that will Power ( in Particular) Scott Day P.Ag., Diversification Specialist Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives Box 519 Melita MB R0M 1L0 Telephone: 204-522-3256 Email: [email protected]

“The Crops that Will Power Biofuels”: this is a huge topic with thousands of options and variables to consider. With this presentation I will try and focus on summarizing some of the research we have done at Manitoba’s Diversification Centres that is related to /ethanol feed stock evaluation. Our Diversification Centres have done work on feedstock sources as well but this presentation will focus on ethanol feedstocks. However, maybe the first question we should answer; is this even worth pursuing? When you look at today’s headlines it is easy to imagine that the “honeymoon” for biofuels is over and the “hangover” has begun. If you type “Biofuels being Bad” into Google the hits will number in the millions. However, this is a very big concept and it is impossible to summarize its future with one headline or news story.

For Instance the technology of Homogeneous Compression Combustion Ignition (HCCI) engines has started to come into the limelight. Farmers and truckers might think of these engines by the less fancy name of “diesel engine”. However, they aren’t really diesel engines either. These engines have such precise computerized fuel delivery systems that they can burn all matter of fuels that are ignited by the heat from the cylinder’s compression rather than combustion initiated from a spark plug. What you essentially have is a gas engine that behaves like a diesel engine. Without getting too complicated these engines can burn “wet ethanol”, this is ethanol that still has water in it. Making ethanol takes considerable energy but removing all the water from the ethanol takes up the biggest chunk of that energy requirement. In talking to a person that has a small scale ethanol on his farm, almost 50% of the power the plant consumes is used to draw out every last drop of water from the ethanol. By leaving the water in the ethanol the energy use and balance becomes much more favorable for this system. All the big car makers have HCCI engines in the testing stages – although not all are burning wet ethanol. These HCCI engines while running on gasoline or ethanol also have much greater thermal efficiency than a regular gas engine and thus they can then achieve the same level of fuel savings that we commonly see with the comparable traditional diesel engines of today. When we see comments saying that the energy balance of ethanol from or corn is very poor, well you can be rest assured there are technologies that are quickly changing in this industry that have the potential to improve efficiencies in leaps rather than small steps. Another interesting technology making biofuel production more efficient are these simple to use ionized resin pellets that are used to “Clean up” biodiesel. They are a very efficient and easy to use technology that removes the last bit of water and glycerin while producing biodiesel. Biofuels are here to stay.

Canada has good potential for ethanol and , a 5% mandate of ethanol in all gasoline in this country would use up about 10% of our total annual crop production. We already import about $300 million in soymeal that could be partially displaced with more canola meal and DDG’s which are the byproducts of Biofuel production. Much of ’s now heads south to be finished with the cheaper feed down there. We have excellent water and energy resources and we have a significant petroleum fuel infrastructure already in place in this country. In talking with the President of the Minnesota Corn Growers last year he mentioned that the production of corn for all segments of the industry has increased dramatically in his state. This answers somewhat the fuel versus food debate. Minnesota now produces an exponentially greater amount of corn form ethanol than it did just 5 years before. However, it also now produces significantly higher amounts of corn for food, feed and other industrial uses as well. The markets said to grow more corn and they simply now grow a lot more corn for every market. They have stopped growing crops that were being encouraged with crop subsidies (such as ) and are now growing what the market tells them to and that market says Corn.

So let’s take a look at the how the different crops stack up in their production of ethanol per tonne or per acre. This information was mostly compiled by Solulski & Tarasoff in 1997 and was gleaned off of the Alberta Ag Website.

Estimated Ethanol yield per tonne of (keep in mind there is great variability between varieties within each type of grain):

• : 392 litres/tonne • CPS & SWS Wheat: 382 litres/tonne • 382 litres/tonne • 377 litres/tonne • CWRS & : 364 litres/tonne • Corn – ethanol 400 l/tonne • (hulless) 380 l/tonne • Peas (= corn) 250 l/tonne • Oats (hulless) 353 l/tonne • Oats (regular) 317 l/tonne

When you look at average yields in Manitoba it can be said that Oats will actually produce the most ethanol per acre. However, the extensive hulls with oats can cause problems for distilling and the lower per tonne makes Oats less efficient in the system. Ethanol is made from Oats in Scandinavia but unique high value products are made from the DDG which helps make their system profitable. An abundance of Oat DDG would not be able to consistently take advantage of this premium.

Here is an estimate of ethanol yield per acre from various crops: Once again keep in mind that there can be huge differences in yields from one region, or even field, to the next:

• Beets 2700 l/ac • Sugar 2500 l/ac • Corn 1500 l/ac • Winter wheat 800 l/ac • , Barley 600 l/ac • One bushel Wheat = 10 litres ethanol

It is interesting to note that there is a processing plant sitting idle in this province when sugar beets have such great potential to produce ethanol. However, this crop is also expensive to grow and I have no idea whether ethanol production from sugar beets is feasible in Manitoba. I do know that produces vast amounts of ethanol from sugar cane and sugar beets so we know it is working there. It is easy to see from this chart why the US Ethanol industry is focused on Corn, however corn is not possible in most of the Prairies and that is why we are concentrating on the crops that are below the corn in this chart above. As a result of Manitoba Agriculture’s restructuring 4 years ago there was greater emphasis put on Diversification Centre’s in this province to help make quality research and new opportunities more assessable and possible for local producers. Right now there are four major crop diversification centres in Manitoba; PCDF at Roblin, Manitoba managed by Keith Watson and Jeff Kostuik and PESAI at Arborg, MB. managed by Paula Halabicki. There is CMCDC that is a joint effort between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba based at Carberry – Clayton Jackson manages the efforts there and Tammy Jones with MAFRI works with Clayton and also is involved with their efforts in Portage and Winkler. Then there is WADO in Melita which is managed by myself, Scott Day, and Scott Chalmers. All of these groups became involved in the Prairie Wide Ethanol Screening Trials in 2007. This project is coordinated by Sherrilyn Phelps with AAFC and Dr. Curtis Pozniak at the U of S. The Ethanol Screening Trial committee came up with a list of varieties and crops that they feel have the best potential in Western Canada for ethanol production. Then these crops were grown at various sites across the Prairies including the Diversification Centre sites in Manitoba. These trials have been ongoing in Sask and Alta. since 2005. WADO was involved with this project last year and 2007 was the first year of wide spread participation in Manitoba. Here is their list of the possible top ethanol producers and therefore were included in these trials:

• Superb & Barrie – checks

• AC Crystal, AC Vista, 5700PR – fair leaf , fair, FHB very poor – CPS wheats

• AC Andrew, Bhishaj, SWS 349,389,366,HY475 – leaf rust MR/MS, sprouting Fair, FHB very poor – Soft White wheats

• Ashby, Chablis – British spring wheats, leaf rust good, sprouting good, FHB poor (Chiraz is included in this group as well) CPSR class (possibly)

• Hoffman, Nass – Eastern Canadian wheats, FHB is not good, very poor, tall .

• McGwire – Hulless Barley

• AC Ultima – Triticale

It is always a good thing to do independent testing with most things in agriculture. Two of the top candidates for ethanol production on our list; Hoffman and AC Andrew, came from the owner with disease ratings far more favorable that what was observed in 2007 (which was a low disease year!). Hoffman had a rating of R for Fusarium Head Blight (FHB). However, in the Fusarium screening trails conducted elsewhere in Manitoba it showed to be very susceptible. The same goes for AC Andrew where it had a somewhat favorable rating on FHB but in the FHB screening trials it once again did very poorly. Hoffman also showed to be very susceptible to stem rust, which basically means it is not suited to Manitoba. The British wheats in this trial looked to have excellent potential but they were later maturing and I am sure this negatively affected them because of the heat and drought that dominated the last half of 2007. If the summer had been a little more “normal” I imagine the British wheats would have done much better, although they still did well in these trials. With most of the wheats in the trial you should expect to fertilizer sufficiently (higher) and apply at least one fungicide during the growing season. All of these wheats do yield significantly more than current HRSW’s but they are all more susceptible to leaf diseases and other problems so they have to be cared for accordingly. It is very important to realize that some of the crops that were considered for this trial are not registered at this time, in Manitoba. In some cases they also aren’t recommended to be grown here regardless of their registration status. We were simply looking for maximum ethanol yield. As noted there are disease risks with most of these varieties and you should be fully aware of this before you consider planting any of these varieties. With 06 & 07 being such dry and disease free years this has mitigated the disease impact on the final results but in other years disease could be very significant. I think from what we have observed there is no reason to risk growing an unregistered or non recommended variety at this time for ethanol feedstock production in Manitoba. There are several good choices in the trial that are registered and therefore can provide farmers with greater security and marketing options.

Ashby Wheat in WADO’s Ethanol screening trial at Melita

Large head of Hoffman Wheat

Large head of Hoffman Wheat

One of the Triticale Varieties

Ethanol Variety Yields at Melita and Roblin Test Sites 2007

200.0 Melita 20 180.0 Roblin 18 Disease Incidence 160.0 16 Average Yield 140.0 14

120.0 12 100.0 10 80.0 8

Yield (% of check) 60.0 6

40.0 4 Disease Incidence 20.0 2 0.0 0

AC Ultima SWS 389 AC Vista SWS 349 5700PR AC Andrew Bhishaj Chiraz Hoffman AC Crystal Ashby 162-008 SW Chablis 475 HY CDC McGwire SWS 366 Nass Barrie AC (check) Superb

In the above chart you can see the results from our trials in 2007. If you follow the legend you will see that the yield advantages over the checks were pretty similar between Roblin and Melita. The yellow line reflects the average yields from all the plots in Manitoba including the Arborg and Carberry data. The average yield for the checks (Barrie & Superb) in Roblin was close to 60 bushels to the acre and the average of the checks in Melita was 40 bushels to the acre. Roblin had very high natural fertility in their trial site this year and all of their yields were excellent. In all Manitoba sites the Ultima Triticale gave the highest yield. Triticale is being evaluated for ethanol production to a greater extent in Alberta but our results from 2006 and 2007 show promise for Manitoba as well. The concern with Triticale is its susceptibility to some cereal diseases like Fusarium Head Blight. You can see that the Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) wheats and the Soft White (SW) wheats have done very well. It was unknown how the soft whites would adapt as they were developed for irrigation in Southern Alberta; however it looks like they have made the transition out of the irrigation zone pretty well. Especially considering how hot and dry the last two summers have been. In both the CPS and SW wheats disease is a real concern, fungicides should be planned for right from the start, and these wheat’s should be avoided where Fusarium risk is high. High risk areas such as in the Southern and Eastern regions of the province should be avoided. Both of these classes of wheat will also sprout easily (this is good for ethanol though). This is a problem with marketing if indeed they do sprout prior to harvest. If they can’t make it as ethanol then they probably can’t make it for many other uses as well. This means not through the CWB markets either so your only option will probably be feed. This is something to consider when growing these wheats. With 2007 being a bad year for leaf rust on Barrie and Superb it is likely that these significant yield advantages wouldn’t always be seen against some of the newer HRS Wheats. Looking at data from the past few years I think you could plan with confidence that the yield from CPS or SW wheat will be at least 25% higher than HRSW in your area with 40% often possible. This is of course if fungicides are used in the proper manner. This chart below shows the results from the entire Prairie Wide Ethanol screening trial featuring all the data from all three provinces. This level of detail from the 2007 trials won’t be available until March or April when the quality testing has been completed.

You will see that high usually means lower starch content. You will also see that the protein level is still pretty high in all the wheats despite high yields and good starch levels. This indicates to me that we can go further with in reducing protein and increasing starch levels and yields. You will see that the Hulless barley and Triticale did well in the yield and starch content in 2006 which could provide some important variability for growing ethanol feedstocks. Once again the check in these results is the HRSW variety Superb:

Variety Yield Protein Starch Superb 100% 16.2% 63.5% Bhishaj 120% 11.8% 68.6% AC Andrew 116% 12% 66.1% Hoffman 118% 13.4% 65.8% AC Crystal 107% 12.8% 67.1% 5700 PR 102% 13.8% 65.9% AC Vista 111% 13.6% 66.1% HY475 102% 13.9% 65.5% AC Ultima 114% 12.9% 65.9% McGwire 115% 13.1% 63.2%

This table below illustrates the great variability you can see between varieties and also the tremendous variability you can see from one location to the other even in the same year: These are from this same ethanol screening trial but this data is from only two locations in 2005. Lashburn SK experienced a good growing season in 2005 while Scott SK was in the midst of a drought.

Location Lashburn Scott Protein Yield Starch Protein Yield Starch Variety (%) (kg/ha) (%) (%) (kg/ha) (%) CPS red 11.6 3379 69 13.0 2200 64 HRS Wheat 13.7 2811 67 14.6 1401 61 Wapiti (Triticale) 3966 71 2356 65.2 Bhishaj (Soft white wheat) 4206 72.2 2191 65.6 Superb (HRSW) 3015 67 1484 61 AC Ranger (Hulless barley) 4290 62 1601 55

As you can see from these tables the higher the yield usually means lower protein and with that comes higher starch content. You will also see the tremendous variability in starch content from one location to the other even with the same variety. Looking at all the data from all the sites from 2005 & 2006 it would appear that the Soft White Wheat variety Bhishaj (developed at AAFC Lethbridge) has the greatest potential for maximum starch production – therefore maximum ethanol production – per acre. However we are seeing regional differences with this trial such as the excellent showing of Triticale in Manitoba the last two years so there is more work to be done before there is enough confidence to say this is the wheat to go with or not. WADO also was involved with a variety trial in 2007 in conjunction with the Western Feed Grain Development Co-op based in Minto Manitoba (www.wfgd.ca). WFGD provided WADO with their top varieties they are currently focusing on to satisfy this emerging new market for wheat to be used in ethanol production and livestock feed. We found their varieties to be significantly higher yielding than the Superb check – just like we observed with the Ethanol Screening trial. However, they did have one variety in particular (FG1) that stood out noticeably and has an excellent disease package. This disease resistance is especially noteworthy when compared to the Hoffman or AC Andrew wheat that was closest to it in yield. This would be a strong candidate for feed and ethanol production in Manitoba. These wheats from the Feed Grain Co- op are not yet named so we have simply coded them in order for the purpose of our trial.

Melita 2007 Western Feed Cooperative

170 Unsprayed 146 150 143 138 131 131 130 126 125

110 102 100

90

check) of Yield (% 70

50 FG1 Hoffman AndewAC FG2 FG3 FG4 FG5 FG6 (check) Superb

Winter Wheat also has tremendous potential for satisfying these emerging markets for fuel and feed but we will not be including them in the ethanol screening trial until 2008. Their yield advantage over HRSW and their potential for ethanol production have already been well documented. One of the main obstacles I see to greater winter wheat production in Western Canada is the inability to get it seeded on time. Often harvest and the weather in general make seeding this crop before the 15th of September a difficult task. If we can develop varieties that can be seeded until the 15th of October for instance then winter wheat acres could greatly expand and would be more consistent from one year to the next. If a new category of winter wheat was only focused on high starch content then finding genetics to allow this late seeding might be easier as well.

Last but not least if or energy production becomes an important part of our future then we have been working on those possibilities too. Many people talk about Switchgrass being the crop to satisfy this new segment of production. However, the Switchgrass plots at Melita have never produced very well over the years, even under irrigation. It seems that plant is better suited to the warmer and wetter regions outside of Southwest Manitoba. On the other hand PCDF at Dauphin has been doing considerable work with and the other Diversification Centres have been involved as well. This photo below shows Keith Watson (MAFRI & PCDF Manager) with a specially bred; high fibre, high biomass hemp variety near Dauphin in 2006. The dry matter yield from this plot was an amazing 11 tonnes per acre, when converted to a standard BTU energy value this would mean more than $2000 per acre of energy production could come from this one crop of Hemp.

Hopefully what this shows is that we have interesting alternatives to supply the current starch based ethanol industry with high yielding, high quality feedstocks right now, and new opportunities are still yet to be developed. Then as the biofuel industry evolves to possibly include cellulosic ethanol or biomass energy production then Manitoba has some interesting alternatives to satisfy these needs as well.

Scott Day P.Ag. Jan 25th – 2008

Additional information is available in the report “2006 Ethanol Adaptation Trials Summary Report to Co-operators and Funding Partners” by Dr. Curtis J. Pozniak.

For more detailed information, email Scott at [email protected].

Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives