sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arundo, Barley, Energy crop, Miscanthus, Miscanthus x giganteus, Wheat

WORKING 2016-24

Assessing the profitability of growing dedicated energy versus in four European countries

Authors: Chelsea Petrenko and Stephanie Searle Date: 18 November 2016 Keywords: ILUC, energy crops, , policy

Summary on productive in to be at a high risk of displacement order to more accurately assess the by dedicated energy crops. Dedicated energy crops are a competitiveness of dedicated energy widely-considered option for biofuel crops when not restricted to marginal, This study supports global economic production, as they may reduce underused lands. modeling studies’ findings that impacts on food markets compared energy crops carry low ILUC risk, to produced from food The study finds that dedicated corroborating the findings with crops. However, energy crops could energy crops are generally not detailed analyses at a regional level. impact food production and cause competitive with major food crops. Biofuels produced from these energy indirect land use change (ILUC) if In some cases, energy crops could crops may therefore deliver high they displace food crops on existing be expected to produce a slightly greenhouse gas savings, if grown in agricultural land. Global economic greater profit than and , but adherence with strong sustainability modeling studies have generally the difference in profit potential may criteria, and could form a key element predicted minimal ILUC for dedicated not be high enough for farmers to of post-2020 transport decar- energy crops. These types of studies assume the risks inherent in switching bonization strategies in . are sensitive to assumptions about to energy production, which yields, , and production costs. requires investment in long-term cul- Introduction In this study, we conduct an investi- tivation systems. Neither Dedicated energy crops are a widely- gation into the potential for energy nor are found to be com- considered option to produce low crops to displace food crops in four petitive with in and carbon, sustainable biofuels as part countries in Europe based on the , suggesting that these relative profitability of these crops. energy crops are unlikely to displace of Europe’s strategies to decarbon- We compare the profitability of the most widely-produced food ize the transport sector. Energy Miscanthus, a perennial grass, and crop in those countries. The most crops, if grown on unused, low willow to promising in terms of carbon land, could avoid some of the that of top food crops produced in profitability is donax, which greenhouse gas issues Denmark, Germany, and the United outperforms crops grown in that have plagued first generation, Kingdom, taking into account . However, the success of the food crop biofuels, namely indirect regional production costs, yields, crop depends greatly on achieving land use change (ILUC) emissions and market prices of each type of high yields and a favorable farm-gate resulting from food impacts. For crop. This study also compares the price. is not estimated example, a literature review in Searle profitability of a perennial crop to be profitable when compared to et al. (2016) found that energy crops Arundo donax in Sardinia, , to wine , supporting the finding have the potential to increase carbon food crops grown there. Specifically, that the highest-value, economically storage on abandoned agricultural we estimate energy crop profitability important crops in a region tend not land in Europe.

Acknowledgements: This work was generously supported by the European Climate Foundation. Thanks to Pete Harrison, Nik Pavlenko, Nic Lutsey, and Sammy El Takriti for reviews.

© INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, 2016 WWW.THEICCT.ORG ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

However, energy crops could still production on agricultural land by adequate precipitation or impact food production and prices comparing the relative profitabil- (Searle & Malins, 2014). if they displace food crops on cur- ity of growing dedicated energy rently-used agricultural land. Global crops versus food crops at national Arundo donax (commonly referred economic models used to predict ILUC and regional scales. We compared to as giant cane) is a perennial from biofuel demand have generally two biofuel crops—perennial grass cane that is native to eastern reported energy crop ILUC emissions and SRC—to the top food crops Asia and invasive in Europe (Pilu to be lower than from food-based produced in Denmark, Germany, et al., 2013). It was introduced to biofuels. In some cases ILUC emissions and the . This Sardinia hundreds, or possibly even from energy crops are estimated to study also compared the profit- thousands of years ago and has be negative. For example, a recent ability of Arundo donax in Sardinia, since been naturalized (i.e., naturally study performed for the European Italy, to food crops grown there. reproduces) across the island. It Commission using the GLOBIOM By estimating the potential energy propagates readily from model estimated ILUC emissions of crop profitability on productive and grows in dense thickets, out- perennial grasses and short-rotation agricultural land, we assessed the competing other species. A. donax coppice (SRC) crops to be -12 and degree to which energy crops could requires considerable irrigation to -1 thrive and thus can only be suc- -29 g CO2e MJ , respectively (Valin compete with food crops when et al., 2015). Similarly, another study they are not restricted to marginal, cessfully cultivated where sufficient using the GTAP econometric model underused lands. water resources are present. estimated that the ILUC emissions from perennial grasses ranged from For Denmark, Germany, and the United Methods -1 Kingdom, this study assesses the -10 g to 19 g CO2e MJ (Dunn et al., 2013). The low ILUC values from these dedicated energy crops Miscanthus The profitability of dedicated energy studies stemmed from a small degree (Miscanthus spp.) and willow (Salix crops is compared to the profitabil- of land use change in response to spp.). Miscanthus is a perennial, C4 ity of several food crops in Denmark, energy crop demand, carbon savings grass endemic to eastern Asia (Clifton- Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. from increased sequestra- Brown & Lewandowski, 2002). The Energy crops are chosen for the study tion, and relatively high stocks most common variety grown in energy based on the availability of yield data from the energy crops themselves, crop trials is in a particular study region. Because which more than offset other land use Greef et Deu (Searle & Malins, 2014), dedicated energy crops are not yet change emissions. although a range of genotypes has included in agricultural databases, been tested for yield performance energy crop data was collected from While these economic models offer traits across Europe (Clifton-Brown the primary literature. A detailed valuable insight into the likely land et al., 2001). M. x giganteus is a sterile summary of Miscanthus and willow use impacts of biofuel demand, they triploid and thus is propagated by yield data is presented in Appendix 1. are dependent on and sensitive to transplanting rhizomes (Searle & Because Miscanthus yields are low in assumptions for parameters such as Malins, 2014), which contributes the first years of plantation establish- crop yields and production costs, significantly to the start-up costs ment (Searle and Malins, 2014), only which can be locally variable. In of Miscanthus plantations (Witzel yields after the third harvest season particular, yields of energy crops on & Finger, 2015). M. sinensis out- are included in this study. different types of land in different performed M. x giganteus in over- regions are not clearly understood wintering trials, making M. sinensis The five most common food crops and are sometimes overestimated genotypes more likely candidates in each country are considered for (Searle & Malins, 2014). Inaccurate for dedicated fuel crop cultivation in this study, but some crops were or imprecise assumptions about colder, northern European climates eliminated or replaced if sufficient these parameters could affect results (Jørgensen, 1997). yield, production cost, and price from global economic models by a) data are not available. Five-year affecting the land area needed SRC willow is part of the Salix, averages (2010-2014) are calculated to meet a certain level of biofuel which is taxonomically complex for food crop yields and farm-gate demand, and b) affecting the relative and includes hundreds of species prices. Exceptions are made when profitability of biofuel feedstock worldwide (Verwijst et al., 2013). data spanning five years are not compared to other land uses. Its distribution is primarily in cold available, in which case the mean regions of the northern hemisphere, of all available data post-2010 is In this paper, we conduct a detailed and it has been cultivated in Europe used. Regional food data investigation into the risk that for 2000 years (Verwijst et al., 2013). is obtained from Eurostat (2016), energy crops will displace food Willow readily hybridizes but requires and national food crop yield data

2 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2016-24 ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

is obtained from (FAOSTAT, 2016). Farm-gate price data (FAOSTAT, 2016), defined as prices received by farmers for primary crops as collected at the farm-gate or at first point of sale, is used to calculate profitabil- ity. National statistics for each food crop in each country are presented in Table 1.

Miscanthus profitability is assessed on a regional scale for central Denmark, southern , and southern Germany, which represent productive agricultural regions of each country. Miscanthus yields and profits are estimated from studies in a single region and then compared to food crop data from that specific region, when available. An estimate of Miscanthus farm-gate price for the EU is taken from Witzel & Finger (2016) and applied at the regional level, as regional or national price data are not available for Miscanthus.

Willow profitability is measured at the national scale, and estimates of willow yields include data from studies across all of Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom (Figure 1). Similarly, willow profits are Figure 1. Map of Europe with study countries highlighted. compared to food crop profits at the from growing the crop. Current C national scale. Willow farm-gate price ∑T t trials have returned varying yields, t=1 t-1 is taken from Witzel & Finger (2016) (1+d) with increasing outputs expected P = , and Stolarski et al. (2015). Y as cultivation methods are refined. ∑T t t=1 (1+d)t-1 In Carbonia, Sardinia, Italy, the profit- This sensitivity analysis allows for the ability of growing A. donax is assessed estimation of break-even prices in in comparison to two cereal crops comparison to food crop production. where T represents the lifespan of the and two high-value crops. A. donax Food crop data is obtained at a plantation (in years), t represents the is not grown at a commercial scale national level from Eurostat (2016). year, Ct represents the cost (Euros in the region, but plans are in place ha-1), d represents the discount rate, Production costs for Miscanthus are for a in Carbonia, and the and Yt represents Miscanthus yield (t calculated, and production costs for -1 choice between food and fuel crops ha ). The cost variable include estab- willow, A. donax and all food crops could soon be available to most lishment (propagation), harvest, fixed are taken directly from the literature. farmers within 60 km of the biorefin- overhead costs, storage and ery. Probable yields are taken as 40 It is assumed that while production plantation removal, as well as consid- t ha-1 under fully irrigated conditions, costs may vary slightly depending on eration of plantation establishment based on a local case study (Searle et climate and soil conditions, overall subsidies in the case of the United al., 2016). approaches to propagation, planting, Kingdom (Witzel & Finger, 2016). harvest and plantation maintenance A sensitivity analysis is conducted are comparable amongst countries. Willow production cost is taken as for A. donax, in which a range of The cost to grow Miscanthus, a 64.6 Euros t-1 based on the mean cost farm-gate prices and yields are perennial crop, is calculated using the of production, harvest and transport used to calculate potential profits following equation (Wang, 2011): of seven different willow

WORKING PAPER 2016-24 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 3 ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

(Stolarski et al., 2015). The production Table 1. National statistics for food crops included in the study. Data for each country cost of willow is assumed to be the are sorted from highest to lowest production amounts. Data are obtained from FAOSTAT (2016). same across all countries included in the study. The cost of producing A. Area Production Gross value donax in Italy is taken as 87.2 Euros t-1 harvested (million (million Export and includes all aspects of production, (1000 ha) ) Euros) (tonnes) harvest and transport (Christou, 2013). wheat 671,000 4,700,000 593 959,000 639,000 3,560,000 446 885,000 Food production costs are taken Denmark 39,900 1,600,000 309 178,000 from the literature, and when rye 73,600 428,000 40 49,300 appropriate, adjusted for country- oats 54,200 266,000 33 30,000 specific yields. Wheat and barley production costs are estimated from wheat 3,190,000 24,400,000 2,982 7,580 European Commission—EU FADN potato 248,000 10,800,000 1,673 1,840,000 (2014). Oats and rye production Germany barley 1,610,000 10,300,000 446 2,080,000 costs are estimated from European rye 673,000 3,570,000 40 49,000 Commission—EU FADN (2011). oats 137,000 648,000 68 38,100 Potato production costs are taken wine 725427 7,270,000 3,355 494,000 from AHDB (2012). Artichoke Italy oats 117000 743,000 73 8,500 production costs in Italy are barley 252000 273,000 147 8,500 estimated from Sgroi et al. (2015), and wine grape production costs in wheat 1,890,000 14,400,000 1,845 1,890,000 Italy are estimated from Strohm et United barley 1,040,000 6,050,000 687 817,000 al. (2014). Kingdom potato 142,000 5,360,000 1,073 1,180 oats 134,000 743,000 82 31,200 Basic crop profits are calculated as: suggesting that the dedicated Profit = Yield (t ha-1) x [Price at farm gate (€t -1) - Cost of production (€t -1)] energy crop would likely not displace the most widely-produced crop in those countries. All dedicated energy crops are profits, and we report a modest profit here, which is calculated using assumed to be sold at a commercially A. DONAX dry weight of 15% moisture content, relatively high production costs. and yields are adjusted accordingly. Using any of the available potato A. donax is estimated to be more profit data, however, would profitable than cereal crops such as barley and oats in Sardinia (Figure 4). Results and Discussion to the conclusion that dedicated energy crops cannot compete with Importantly, A. donax earns 111 Euros ha-1 more than artichokes, which is MISCANTHUS potato. Wheat, which has the highest production and export values for a staple crop on farms in Sardinia. Miscanthus is not competitive with Denmark and Germany, also signifi- Although artichokes are a relatively food crops in central Denmark, but cantly outperforms Miscanthus. high-value crop, they also incur high it is competitive with oats and rye in production costs (Sgroi et al., 2015). In southern Germany and with oats in the case of labor and capital-intensive WILLOW southern United Kingdom (Figure 2). food crops, a dedicated energy crop Oats and rye are not significant crops Willow is more profitable than rye in that earns more money and requires in either country, however, comprising Germany and more profitable than little investment could displace the lesser production and export oats in the United Kingdom (Figure food crop. This finding was qualita- quantities than wheat or barley. As 3). Again, oats and rye have the tively supported by personal commu- such, the risk of displacement of the lowest production values among the nications with farmers in Sardinia, who highest producing crops in any of the food crops included in the study. In expressed interest in growing and study countries appears to be low Denmark, all food crops outperform profiting from A. donax (Searle et al., for Miscanthus. In all cases, potato willow (Figure 3). In all cases, potato 2016). When compared to a high-value greatly outperforms Miscanthus and greatly outperforms willow and would crop such as wine grape, however, would likely not be replaced by the likely not be replaced by the energy A. donax earns much less money energy crop. Our literature review crop. Willow does not compete with per hectare. Farmers may choose to returned a wide range of potato wheat in either Denmark or Germany, replace cereal or labor-intensive crops

4 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2016-24 ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

with the dedicated energy crop but prices would have to be 65 Euros t-1, For all of the energy crops included in continue to grow specialty crops such which is slightly higher than expected this study, a long-term commitment as grapes. prices. The profitability of the crop is to the crop is required. While ensured by having a higher yield and plantation lifespans for Miscanthus In order for A. donax to be profitable, a minimum price point of 60 Euros range, a typical plantation lifespan is yields and farm-gate prices must t-1. It is important to note that there 20 years (Witzel & Finger, 2015). A. meet break-even values (Table 2), is some variability and uncertainty in donax plantation lifespan is expected which is not guaranteed based on yields and prices for all of the energy to be 10-15 years (personal com- trial estimates and market forecasts. and food crops and regions included in munication, 2015). The long-term The minimum yield included in the this study, and while we present a sen- investment required to begin culti- sensitivity analysis is 25 t ha-1, which sitivity analysis for A. donax for illustra- vation of these energy crops may has been achieved only in trials that tive purposes, outcomes for all of the make it less likely for farmers to take received adequate irrigation (Christou, energy crops in question could change the risk in growing them, even when the energy crop is more profitable 2013). At a yield of 25 t ha-1, farm-gate with fluctuations in input parameters. than the existing food crop. Growing SOUTHERN GERMANY GERMANY energy crops may be more advan- 1500 1500 ) tageous if farmers are able to form -1 ) -1 long-term offtake contracts with bio- 1000 1000 refineries (Wang, 2011). (Euro ha (Euro ha 500 500 Of the crops included in the study,

Profit wheat and potato have the highest Profit 0 0 production and export values, and rye oats rye oats they are much more profitable than wheat barley wheat potato willow potato barley dedicated energy crops. These sig- nificant crops are not likely to be Miscanthus spp. displaced by energy crops. It should CENTRAL DENMARK DENMARK be noted that while crops such

3000 ) 2500 -1

) as rye and oats have relatively low -1 2000 2000 production quantities as compared 1500 to other crops included in the study, (Euro ha

(Euro ha 1000 1000 they also represent some of the top crops grown in the country, and their

Profit 500 Profit 0 0 significance cannot be discounted if they were to be replaced by rye oats rye oats wheat barley poato willow wheat barley potato dedicated fuel crops.

This study assesses the profit- Miscanthus spp. ability of growing energy crops SOUTHERN UK ENGLAND 2000 2000 given current likely biomass prices. ) -1 ) However, it is important to note -1 1500 1500 that energy crop profitability could 1000 1000 change with relevant policies. A (Euro ha

(E uro ha plantation establishment subsidy of 500 500 1,005 Euros is included in the United Profit 0 Profit 0 Kingdom analysis, and energy crops w would likely be less profitable if the oats oats wheat barley potato willo wheat barley potato subsidy were to be revoked. Strong policy support for cellulosic biofuels

Miscanthus spp. CROP CROP in Europe could potentially increase the profitability and thus ILUC risk Figure 2. Profit at farm gate for Figure 3. Profit at farm gate for willow for energy crops. However, this effect Miscanthus spp. versus food crops in cultivars versus food crops in Germany, specific regions of Germany, Denmark Denmark and the United Kingdom. would depend strongly on the type of and the United Kingdom. Food crops are Food crops are ordered on the x-axis policy and on how the policy support ordered on the x-axis from highest to from highest to lowest national is shared along the product chain. A lowest national production quantities. production quantities. subsidy given directly to producers

WORKING PAPER 2016-24 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 5 ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

of cellulosic feedstock would be Table 2. Potential A. donax profits (in Euros per ) as a function of varying more likely to support energy crop farm-gate price and yield. Profits in grey fall below estimated profits for other food profitability compared to a subsidy crops grown in the region. for advanced biofuel blending, for example: in the latter case, the bulk Farm-gate price (Euros) of the policy value would likely be 50 55 60 65 70 absorbed by the biofuel facility, as 25 -21.5 103.5 228.5 353.5 478.5 production of advanced biofuels is 30 -25.8 124.2 274.2 424.2 574.2 not currently economically viable Yield without policy support (see Peters (tonnes per 35 -30.1 144.9 319.9 494.9 669.9 et al., 2016). hectare) 40 -34.4 165.6 365.6 565.6 765.6 45 -38.7 186.3 411.3 636.3 861.3 3000 ) -1 competitive with wheat in Denmark This study generally supports 2000 and Germany, suggesting that the findings from global economic

(Euro ha dedicated energy crop would not modeling studies, which suggest 1000 likely displace the most widely- that energy crops are not likely

Profit produced crop in those countries. to cause high ILUC by displacing 0 Profits from dedicated energy crops existing food crops on agricultural

oats are also orders of magnitude lower land. While our results suggest that barley A. donax than potato. some displacement may occur, it artichokes wine grapes would not likely be widespread The most promising energy crop Figure 4. Expected profit at farm gate across the top produced crops in for A. donax (giant reed) versus food in terms of profitability is A. donax, European countries. When energy crops in Sardinia, Italy. Food crops are which outperforms cereal crops crops would be marginally more ordered on the x-axis from highest to grown in Sardinia, but the success profitable than food crops, farmers lowest national production quantities. of the crop depended greatly on may not be likely to make the achieving high yields and a favorable long-term investment needed to Conclusion farm-gate price. Importantly, while switch to energy crop production. A. donax was competitive with cereal Thanks to their low ILUC emissions, Overall, this study finds that crops, are not important advanced biofuels produced from dedicated energy crops are not crops in the region in terms of energy crops may deliver high competitive with major food crops production quantities or profits. A. greenhouse gas savings and could in most cases. At present prices donax does outcompete artichoke make an important contribution to -1 and yields, dedicated energy crops by approximately 100 Euros ha , Europe’s transport decarbonization make a slightly greater profit than and this suggests that artichoke, goals. However, strong sustain- rye and oats, but the difference in which is an important fixture in ability criteria prohibiting energy profit potential may not be high Sardinian farms, could be at risk of crop production on land with high enough for farmers to assume displacement by the energy crop. carbon stocks and will the risks inherent in switching In Sardinia, A. donax is not more be important in order to ensure to energy crop cultivation, which profitable than wine grapes, which environmental goals are met. requires long-term investment. are produced and exported in sig- Neither Miscanthus nor willow are nificantly greater quantities.

6 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2016-24 ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

References FAOSTAT (2016). United Strohm, K., Garming, H., & Nations Food & Agricultural Dirksmeyer, W. (2014) AHDB Potatoes (2012) Cost of Organization. Retrieved from: Profitability of wine grape Production. and http://faostat.fao.org/ production- and international Horticulture Development analysis. Paper from the Board. Retrieved from: http:// Jørgensen, U. (1997) Genotypic International Horticultural potatoes.ahdb.org.uk/news/ variation in accumula- Congress, Brisbane, . cost-production tion and content of N, K and Cl in Miscanthus in Denmark. Biomass Retrieved from: http://www. Christou, M. (2013) Giant reed 12, 155–169. agribenchmark.org/fileadmin/ (Arundo donax L.) Dateiablage/B-Horticulture/ and yields in Europe. Center Peters, D., Alberici, S., Passmore, Misc/IHC_Profitability_ for Sources J., & Malins, C. (2016). How to Wine_Grape_Production_ and Saving. advance cellulosic biofuels. Strohm_21_08_14.pdf Ecofys. Prepared for the Clifton-Brown, J.C., Lewandowski, International Council on Clean Valin, H., Peters, D., van den Berg, I., Anderson, B., et al. (2001) Transportation. 53pp. Retrieved M., Frank, S., Havlík, P., Forsell, Performance of 15 Miscanthus from: http://www.theicct.org/ N., & Hamelinck, C. (2015). Genotypes at Five Sites in sites/default/files/publications/ The land use change impact Europe. Agronomy Journal, 93, Ecofys-Passmore%20Group_ of biofuels consumed in the 1013–1019. How-to-advance-cellulosic- EU Quantification of area and Clifton-Brown, J.C., & Lewandowski, biofuels_rev201602.pdf greenhouse gas impacts, 261. I. (2002) Screening Miscanthus Available at: https://ec.europa. Pilu, R., Antonella M., & Landoni M. genotypes in field trials to eu/energy/sites/ener/files/ “Arundo Donax as an Energy optimize biomass yield and documents/Final%20Report_ Crop: Pros and Cons of the quality in Southern Germany. GLOBIOM_publication.pdf Utilization of This Perennial .” European Journal of Agronomy, Maydica 58, no. 1 (2013): 54–59. Verwijst, T., Lundkvist, A., Edelfeldt, 16, 97–110. S., & Albertsson, J. (2013) Searle, S.Y., & Malins, C.J. (2014) Will Dunn, J.B., Mueller, S., Kwon, H., Development of Sustainable energy crop yields meet expec- & Wang, M.Q. (2013) Land-use Willow tations? Biomass and Bioenergy, change and greenhouse in Northern Europe. In: Biomass http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. gas emissions from corn Now-Sustainable Growth and biombioe.2014.01.001. and cellulosic . Use. Intech: http://dx.doi. for Biofuels, 6, 51. Searle, S., Petrenko, C., Baz, E., & org/10.5772/55072 Malins, C. (2016). Crops of the European Commission – EU FADN Wang, S., Wang, S., Hastings, A., Biofrontier: In search of oppor- (2011) Farm Economics Brief Pogson, M., & Smith, P. (2012) tunities for sustainable energy EU Production Costs Overview. Economic and greenhouse gas cropping. Washington D.C.: The European Union. Retrieved from: costs of Miscanthus supply International Council on Clean http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ chains in the United Kingdom. Transportation. rica/pdf/Brief201102.pdf Global Change Biology Sgroi, F., Fodera, M., Di Trapani, Bioenergy, 4, 358–363. European Commission – EU FADN A.M., Tudisco, A., & Testa, R. (2014) EU Cereal Farms Report. Witzel, C., & Finger, R. (2016) (2015) Profitability of Artichoke European Union. Retrieved from: Economic evaluation of Growing in the Mediterranean http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ Miscanthus production – A Area. HortScience, 50 (9), rica/pdf/cereal_report_2013_ review. Renewable and 1349–1352. final.pdf Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, Stolarski, M.J., Rosenqvist, H., 681–696. EUROSTAT (2016). European Krzyzaniak, M., Szczukowski, S., Commission. Retrieved from: Tworkowsi, J., Golaszewski, J., & http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat Olba-Ziety, E. (2015) Economic comparison of growing different willow cultivars. Biomass and Bioenergy, 81, 210–215.

WORKING PAPER 2016-24 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 7 ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Appendix A. Dedicated energy crop yields in Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom.

MISCANTHUS

Publication Yield Authors Location Species Land Quality Year (T/Ha/Yr) Clifton-Brown et al. 2001 Rothamsted, England 15.975 M. x giganteus Yes Previously agricultural Clifton-Brown et al. 2001 Rothamsted, England 13.94 M. sinensis Yes Previously agricultural Christian et al. 2008 Rothamsted, England 12.8 M. x giganteus Yes Previously agricultural Clifton-Brown et al. 2001 Central Denmark 15.2 M. sinensis Yes Previously agricultural Clifton-Brown & M. sinensis 2002 Central Denmark 11.06 Yes Previously agricultural Lewandowski Jørgensen 1997 Denmark 8.9 M. sinensis Yes Agricultural soils Larsen et al. 2015 Denmark 13.1 M. x giganteus Preferred soil; Venendaal et al. 1997 Denmark 8.5 Commercial growing conditions Lewandowski Field research station; 1997 Durmersheim, Germany 10.275 M. x giganteus Yes & Schmidt suitable soils Lewandowski Field research station; 1997 Stuttgart, Germany 27.4 M. x giganteus Yes & Schmidt suitable soils Lewandowski Field research station; 1997 Gutenzell, Germany 14.95 M. x giganteus Yes & Schmidt suitable soils Previously agricultural; Schorling et al. 2014 southern Germany 27 M. x giganteus Optimal soils and climate Field research station; Iqbal et al. 2015 Stuttgart, Germany 18.3 M. x giganteus Yes suitable soils Field research station; Gauder et al. 2012 Stuttgart, Germany 14.1 M. x giganteus Yes suitable soils M. Field research station; Gauder et al. 2012 Stuttgart, Germany 10.7 Yes sacchariflorus suitable soils M. sinensis Field research station; Gauder et al. 2012 Stuttgart, Germany 9.5 Yes hybrid suitable soils

SALIX

Publication Yield Genotype/ Authors Location Fertilizer Land Quality Year (t/ha/yr) Clone Lindegaard et al. 2001 United Kingdom 15.4 Ashton stott Previously ceareal Aylott et al. 2008 England 9.5 Jorun production Previously ceareal Aylott et al. 2008 England 9.1 Q83 production Sevel et al. 2012 Denmark 7.0 Sevel et al. 2013 Denmark 11 Yes Best growing conditions Commercially-grown Nord-Larsen et al. 2015 Denmark 7.5 stands Previously cereal Nord-Larsen et al. 2015 Funen, Denmark 3 Sven, Tordis Yes production Igor, Tordis, Previously cereal Nord-Larsen et al. 2015 North Jutland, Denmark 9.5 Yes Gudrun production Sven,Tordis, Previously cereal Nord-Larsen et al. 2015 Zealand, Denmark 8.2 Yes Torhild, Tora production Larsen et al. 2014 Hojmark; Denmark 4 S. viminalis Yes Larsen et al. 2014 Foersom; Denmark 4.2 S. viminalis Yes Scholz & Ellerbrock 2002 Germany 5.9 S. viminalis Previously agricultural Aust et al. 2014 Germany 11.4 Favorable cropland Aust et al. 2014 Germany 16.3 Very favorable cropland Aust et al. 2014 Germany 7.5 Medium cropland

8 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2016-24 ASSESSING THE PROFITABILITY OF GROWING DEDICATED ENERGY VERSUS FOOD CROPS IN FOUR EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

Appendix Citations Gauder, M., Graeff, S., Lewandownski, Nord-Larsen T., Sevel, L., & I., & Claupein, W. (2012). Raulund-Rasmussen, K. Aust, C., Schweier, J., Brodbeck, Long-term yield and perfor- (2015). Commercially Grown F., Sauter, U.H., Becker, G., & mance of 15 different Miscanthus Short Rotation Coppice Schnitzler, J. (2014). Land avail- genotypes in southwest Willow in Denmark: Biomass ability and potential biomass Germany. Annals of Applied Production and Factors production with poplar and Biology, 160, 126–136. doi: Affecting Production. Bioenergy willow short rotation coppices 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2011.00526.x. Research, 8, 325–339. doi: in Germany. Global Change 10.1007/s12155-014-9517-6. Biology-Bioenergy, 6, 521–533. Iqbal, Y., Gauder, M., Claupein, doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12083. W., Graeff-Honninger, S., & Scholz, V., & Ellerbrock, R. Lewandowski, I. (2015). Yield and (2002). The growth, pro- Aylott, M.J., Casella, E., Tubby, I., quality development comparison ductivity, and environmental Street, N.R., Smith, P., & Taylor, between Miscanthus and impact of the cultivation of G. (2008). Yield and spatial switchgrass over a period of 10 energy crops on sandy soils. supply of bioenergy poplar and years. Energy, 89, 268–276. doi: Biomass and Bioenergy, willow short-rotation coppice 10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.134. 23(2): 81–92. doi: 10.1016/ in the UK. New Phytologist S0961-9534(02)00036-3. 178(2): 358–370. doi: Jørgensen, U. (1997). Genotypic 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02396.x. variation in dry matter accumula- Schorling, M., Enders, C., & Voigt, tion and content of N, K and Cl in C. (2015). Assessing the cultiva- Christian, D.G., Riche, A.B., & Yates, Miscanthus in Denmark. Biomass tion potential of the energy N.E. (2008). Growth, yield and and Bioenergy, 12, 155–169. doi: crop Miscanthus x giganteus content of Miscanthus 10.1016/S0961-9534(97)00002-0. for Germany. Global Change × giganteus grown as a biofuel Biology Bioenergy, 7, 763–773. for 14 successive harvests. Larsen, S., Jørgensen, U., & doi: doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12170. Industrial Crops and Products, Lærke, P. (2014) Willow yield 28, 320–327. doi: 10.1016/j. is highly dependent on clone Sevel, L., Nord-Larsen, T., & indcrop.2008.02.009. and site. Bioenergy Research, Raulund-Rasmussen, K. (2012). 7, 1280–1292. doi: doi:10.1007/ Biomass production of four Clifton-Brown, J.C., & s12155-014-9463-3. willow clones grown as short Lewandowski, I. (2002). rotation coppice on two soil Screening Miscanthus Larsen S., Jørgensen, U., Kjeldsen, types in Denmark. Biomass genotypes in field trials to J., & Lærke, P. (2013). Long-term Bioenergy, 46, 664–672. doi: optimise biomass yield and Miscanthus yields influenced by 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.06.030. quality in Southern Germany. location, genotype, row distance, European Journal of Agronomy, fertilization and harvest season. Sevel, L., Nord-Larsen, T., 16, 97–110. doi: 10.1016/ Bioenergy Research, 7, 620–635. Ingerslev, M., Jørgensen, U., & S1161-0301(01)00120-4. doi: 10.1007/s12155-013-9389-1. Raulund-Rasmussen, K. (2013). Fertilization of SRC willow, I: Clifton-Brown, J.C., Lewandowski, Lewandowski, I., & Schmidt, U. biomass production response. I., Andersson, B., Basch, G., (2006). Nitrogen, energy BioEnergy Research 7:319–328. Christian, D.G., Kjeldsen, J.S., and land use efficiencies of doi: 10.1007/s12155-013-9371-y. Jørgensen, U., Mortenson, Miscanthus, reed J., Riche, A.B., Schwarz, K., and as determined by Venendaal, R., Jørgensen, U., & Tayebi, K., & Teixeira, F. (2001). the boundary line approach. Foster, C. (1997). European Performance of 15 Miscanthus Agriculture, Ecosystems and energy crops: a synthesis. Genotypes at Five Sites in Environment, 112, 335–346. doi: Biomass and Bioenergy, Europe. Agronomy Journal, 10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.003. 13, 147–185. doi: 10.1016/ 93, 1013–1019. doi: 10.2134/ Lindegaard, K., Parfitt, R.I., S0961-9534(97)00029-9. agronj2001.9351013x. Donaldson, G., Hunter, T., Dawson, W.M., Forbes, E.G.A., et al. (2001). Comparative trials of elite Swedish and UK biomass willow varieties. Aspe Appl Biol 65 (Biomass and Energy Crops II).

WORKING PAPER 2016-24 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 9