2 Published 2009 by the American Chemical Society pubs.acs.

org/EF
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
Published on Web 09/30/2009
Toward Sustainable Production of Second Generation Bioenergy Feedstocks

John R. Bartle* and Amir Abadi

Department of Environment and Conservation Perth Australia, Locked Bag 104, Bentley Delivery Centre, Western Australia 6983
Received June 24, 2009. Revised Manuscript Received September 2, 2009
Some analysts point to continuing advances in agricultural technology and declining global population
growth rates to predict a substantial surplus of agricultural land by 2050. Such surplus land could be
diverted into growing biomass for renewable energy to help overcome the global challenge of climate
change. Others suggest that diversion of agricultural land into bioenergy will exacerbate risk of chronic
food shortage by 2050. Onbalance it appears that declining populationgrowthrate, continuing technology
advance, and intensifying use of existing global agricultural land could support sufficient food production
as well as some bioenergy production. Competitive bioenergy requires development of second-generation
(lignocellulosic) feedstocks rather than first-generation (starch, sugar, and oilseed) feedstocks. Second-
generation feedstocks from woody crops have the potential to complement intensive agriculture and
ameliorate its environmental impacts. Woody biomass crops may therefore have a lower effective cost than
generally perceived. The potential for woody crops is indicated with an economic analysis of mallee, a
woody crop being developed for low-cost biomass production in Western Australia. Mallees are short,
multistemmed eucalypts grown in dispersed narrow belts, harvested on a regular short cycle, and
regenerated by coppice. When integrated into the dryland agriculture of this region it has the potential
to improve the economic and environmental performance of the entire system.
Introduction
The International Energy Agency (IEA) identified two key
global energy challenges in their 2008 World Energy Out-
look.
1
The first is securing the supply of reliable and afford-
able energy, andthe secondis effecting a rapidtransformation
to a low-carbon, efficient, and environmentally benign system
of energy supply. They saw this as being nothing short of an
energy revolution (Executive Summary, p 37).
It might be expected that a revolution in the global energy
economy would also be a revolution for global agriculture.
Energy is not only a major input cost to agriculture, it can also
be an output in the form of bioenergy feedstocks. Medium- to
long-term projections indicate global oil prices will remain
above $US70/barrel (2007 real prices).
1-3
In this range agricul-
tural input costs become highly sensitive to petroleum-based
input costs, and it becomes attractive to divert first-generation
feedstocks suchas maize andsugar intoethanol production.
4
At
the height of the economic boom in 2006-08, the escalating
diversionof maize toethanol productioninthe USraisedstrong
debate about a food or fuel conflict in agricultural land use
and the risk that the world may be heading into a period of
chronic food shortage.
5-7
This debate stimulated interest in
second-generation (lignocellulosic) feedstocks for bioenergy.
8
This paper provides an overview of how production of
second-generation feedstocks from woody crops might be
accommodated into global agriculture without compromising
food supply. It focuses on the potential for woody crops to be
developed as dual purpose components of agricultural sys-
tems, to produce feedstocks for bioenergy and deliver envi-
ronmental services. It then presents a case study from the
southwest of Western Australia where mallee eucalypts are
being developed for integration into a dryland winter-rainfall
agricultural system with a range of environmental problems.
The Potential of Agriculture
Global agriculture has an impressive record of increased
production over the past 50 years. In the 40 years prior to
2000 it fed a world that doubled in population (from 3 to 6
billion), it increased per capita food production by 20%,
generated technology advances such that the increase in pro-
ductionhas required only anadditional 11%of newland, andit
reduced the real cost of food by two-thirds.
9-12
Aggregate

Presented at the 2009 Sino-Australian Symposium on Advanced Coal

and Biomass Utilisation Technologies.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: john.
bartle@dec.wa.gov.au.
(1) IEA, World Energy Outlook 2008; OECD/IEA: Paris, 2008; p 569.
(2) ABARE, Australian Commodities; Australian Bureau Agricultural
and Resource Economics: Canberra, 2009; Vol. 16(1), p 256.
(3) The World Bank. Global Economic Prospects ; Commodities at
the Crossroads; World Bank: Washington DC, 2009; p 180.
(4) Cassman, K. G.; Liska, A. J. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining
2007, 1, 18.
(5) Nellemann, C.; MacDevette, M.; Manders, T.; Eickhout, B.;
Svihus, B.; Prins, A. G.; Kaltenborn, B. P. Eds. The Environmental Food
Crisis ;The Environments Role in Averting Future Food Crises; United
Nations Environment Program: Norway, 2009; p 101.
(6) (a) The End of Cheap Food. The Economist Magazine 2007,
December 8, 11; (b) Briefing: Cheap No More. The Economist Magazine
2007, December 8, 81-83.
(7) The State of Food Insecurity in the World; Food and Agriculture
Organisation: Rome, 2008; p 56.
(8) Tilman, D.; Socolow, R.; Foley, J. A.; Hill, J.; Larson, E.; Lynd,
L.; Pacala, S.; Reilly, J.; Searchinger, T.; Somerville, C.; Williams, R.
Science 2009, 325, 270.
(9) FAO. World Agriculture ;Towards 2015/2030, an FAO Perspec-
tive; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, 2003; p 432.
(10) UN. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, Highlights,
Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP; United Nations, Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, Population Division: New York, 2009; p 89.
(11) World Agriculture ;Towards 2030/2050, Prospects for Food, Nutri-
tion, Agriculture and Major Commodity Groups, Global Perspectives Study
Unit Interim Report; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, 2006; p 71.
(12) FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture: Biofuels: Prospects, Risks
and Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome, 2008; p 128.
3
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
global cereal yield increased from 1.4 to 3.05 tons/ha, and the
amount of arable land required to produce a given amount of
grain declined 56%.
9
For example, the advance of maize yields
in the USA, annotated with key technology improvements, is
given in Figure 1.
In the first decade of the newcentury, a major commodities
boom and steep escalation of the petroleum price raised the
question: can agriculture continue to keep pace with popula-
tion growth? On the demand side, the UN medium variant
projection is for population to increase from 6 billion in 2000
to 9.1 billion people by 2050.
10
The population growth rate is
expected to fall to 1.2% in 2010 to 0.3% in 2050 and reach
zero growth (or a population maximum) around 2075. On the
supply side, extra production from technology advance
alone is expected to exceed the extra demand due to popula-
tion growth.
9,11
Furthermore, there is opportunity to inten-
sify use of the current 5 billion ha of global agricultural
and grazing land.
12
Several studies use forward projections
of historic aggregate supply and demand data to indicate that
there is capacity to feed the additional 3 billion people,
perhaps without any increase in the real price of food,
while still producing some first-generation feedstocks for
biofuels.
3,9,11-14
However, these studies are forward pro-
jections with little analysis of factors influencing the ulti-
mate production potential from existing global agricultural
land.
The energy revolution is a major new variable in looking
into the future. The extent to which agricultural production
potential may be drawn into supply of bioenergy feedstocks
is not clear. To a significant extent, this is expected to be
moderated by the emergence of more energy efficient
second-generation biofuel technologies.
1
First-genera-
tion biofuels can be produced from food crops containing
starch/sugar/oil, where the conversion technologies and
markets are well established, and where it has been possible
to quickly take advantage of the commercial opportu-
nity provided by the increase in petroleum prices.
15,16
Particularly, where these technologies are applied to annual
temperate-climate food crops (cereals, sugar beet, oil
seeds), the overall process has relatively low energy output
compared to energy inputs.
17,18
A major attraction of
second-generation feedstocks is their abundance, low cost,
and ratio of energy output to input. They are lignocellulosic
materials that make up the fibrous and woody structural
components of plants. These materials are available as
primary (in the field) or secondary (processing) residues
fromagriculture and forestry; as well as tertiary waste (from
urban/industrial activity). Primary sources also include
herbaceous (grasses) and woody species grown as crops.
The herbaceous and woody species being targeted for
development as lignocellulosic crops are robust perennial
species that can resprout from rootstocks after harvest. In
the case of woody crops, this resprouting process is called
coppicing. Woody crops in particular have the potential to
provide ecosystem services and therefore to complement
rather than compete with conventional agriculture.
There is considerable current investment in developing
second-generation conversion technologies and biomass
sources.
1,19
Progress in understanding the technical production poten-
tial of the global agricultural land base of 5 billion ha is
indicated by Lysen and van Egmond.
20,21
They reviewed the
recent literature and identified several studies that examined
Figure 1. US maize yield trend from1966 to 2005 annotated with technological innovations that contributed to yield gain. FromCassman and
Liska.
4
(13) Tweeten, L.; Thompson, S. R. Farm Policy J. 2009, 6 (1), 17.
(14) OECD-FAO. Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017; OECD Publica-
tions: Paris, 2008; p 229.
(15) Hettinga, W. G.; Junginger, H. M.; Dekker, S. C.; Hoogwijk, M.;
McAloon, A. J.; Hicks, K. B. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 190.
(16) Van den Wall Bake, J. D.; Junginger, M.; Faaij, A.; Poot, T.;
Walter, A. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 33, 644.
(17) Wu, H.; Fu, Q.; Giles, R.; Bartle, J. R. Energy Fuels 2008, 22,
190.
(18) Farrell, A. E.; Pelvin, R. J.; Turner, B. T.; Jones, A. D.; OHare,
M.; Kammen, D. M. Science 2006, 311, 505.
(19) Dickmann, D. I. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 696.
(20) Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A.; Verweij, P.; Banse, M.; Diepen, K. v.;
Keulen, H. v.; Langeveld, H.; Meeusen, M.; Ven, G. v. d.; Wester, F.;
Born, G. J. v. d.; Oorschot, M. v.; Ros, J.; Smout, F.; Vuuren, D. v.;
Vliet, J. v.; Aiking, H.; Londo, M.; Mozaffarian, H.; Smekens, K.
Biomass Assessment ; Main Report; Lysen, E.; Egmond, S. v. Eds.;
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency: Bilthoven, 2008; p 108.
Available at http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2008/index.html [Accessed
May 2009].
(21) Dornburg, V.; Faaij, A.; Verweij, P.; Banse, M.; Diepen, K. v.;
Keulen, H. v.; Langeveld, H.; Meeusen, M.; Ven, G. v. d.; Wester, F.;
Alkemade, R.; Brink, B. t.; Born, G. J. v. d.; Oorschot, M. v.; Ros, J.;
Smout, F.; Vuuren, D. van; Wijngaart, R. v. d.; Aiking, H.; Londo, M.;
Mozaffarian, H.; Smekens, K. Biomass Assessment - Supporting Docu-
ment; Lysen, E.; Egmond, S. v. Eds.; Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency: Bilthoven 2008; p 202. Available at http://www.pbl.nl/en/publica-
tions/2008/index.html [Accessed May 2009].
4
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
factors affecting biomass production potential on a global
scale.
22,23,25-27
They set out to build on these studies, in
particular, to deal coherently with impacts and linkages of
biomass production with food supply, water use, biodiversity,
carbon emission regulations, and economics. They used
regional and site specific resolution in dealing with these
linkages. They estimate technical resource potential, identify
gaps in current knowledge, and provide guidelines for policy
on sustainable biomass development. They defined the po-
tential for biomass production from several sources, in
addition to meeting demand for food, at 2050, of about
500 EJ/year (10
18
Joules/year) as shown in Table 1.
Lysen and van Egmond
20
also undertook economic analy-
sis to determine the competitiveness of biomass compared to
other energy options. For power generation, where there is
competition from other renewables (wind, solar, solar-ther-
mal, geothermal), they found that demand would decline for a
farm-gate biomass price over the range US$2-3/GJ (or US
$24-36/green ton for fresh biomass with an energy content of
12GJ/ton in 2008 dollars). When second-generation tech-
nologies are developed to produce transport fuels, and where
the major competitors are oil and gas, a price of US$4-5/GJ
would be competitive. They found that these prices would not
be attractive enough to fully utilize the technical biomass
supply potential. On the basis of this work IEA Bioenergy
28
estimates that bioenergy will supply about 250 EJ (25-33%of
global energy supply) by 2050.
More detailed assessments of the bioenergy market share
out to 2030 are presented by IEA in their World Energy
Outlook.
1
They use their World Energy model
29
to make
global projections based on specified assumptions. Their
baseline projection, the reference scenario, incorporates natio-
nal governments energy policies that were adoptedor enacted
up to mid-2008, and with other established energy market
trends, extrapolates these according to the underlying forces
of demand and supply. The reference scenario provides a
baseline against which to compare alternative scenarios.
The reference scenario shows that fossil fuels would con-
tinue their dominance of world energy supply maintaining a
share of more than 80% of consumption. Oil retains its
ranking as the major source, although its 2030 share declines
to 30%. With a growth rate about half that of coal, oil would
be passed as the major source soon after 2030. Biomass
supplied slightly more than 10%of the annual global primary
energy demand in 2006, exceeding both hydro and nuclear.
Biomass and other renewables would barely increase their
share (from 11 to 12%) by 2030. Annual growth rate for all
sources is projected to be 1.6% and for biomass 1.4%.
As a contrast to the reference scenario, the IEA
1
provides
two additional policy scenarios that constrain emissions to
achieve target levels for long-term stabilization of atmo-
spheric CO
2
equivalents (CO
2
-e) concentration at 450 and
550 ppm. These two scenarios straddle the progressive but
plausible range of emissions control targets. The IPCC
30
estimates that a 450 ppmCO
2
-e scenario will limit the increase
of average global temperature to 2 Cover preindustrial levels
anda 550 ppmCO
2
-e scenariowill limit the increase to3 C. In
achieving these scenarios cap-and-trade systems are assumed
to play an important role in the OECD nations. In these
markets, the price of traded carbon is expected to reach US
$90/ton CO
2
-e (in real 2007 dollars) under the 550 ppmCO
2
-e
and US$180/ton under the 450 ppm CO
2
-e scenario. The
reference scenario will also eventually stabilize, but later than
the two climate policy scenarios, and at an atmospheric CO
2
-e
concentration of 1000 ppmwith a global average temperature
increase of up to 6 C.
30
The IEA
1
considers that a tempera-
ture rise of this order is well beyond what the international
community now regards as acceptable.
Table 2 shows the global percentage market share of
primary energy sources at 2030 under the reference and policy
scenarios. Under the reference scenario, the fossil fuel share of
total primary energy was 80%in2006 andremains at this level
to 2030. Under the two policy scenarios, primary energy
demand to 2030 declines by 9% and 16% (550 and 450 ppm
CO
2
-e respectively) and the fossil fuel shares decline to 75%
and 67% respectively. The other renewables source has the
strongest increase across scenarios but starts from a low base.
The other nonfossil fuels all expand strongly, with biomass
projected to have a 12 or 15% (550 and 450 ppm CO
2
-e
respectively) share of total global energy demand by 2030.
Taking into account the inertia in major restructuring of
world energy sources, the IEA
1
projections to 2030 are not
inconsistent with the scale of bioenergy utilization foresha-
dowed in the IEA Bioenergy
28
assessment to 2050, with much
of the increase in bioenergy coming on-stream after 2030.
Table 1. Technical Annual Biomass Production Potential at 2050
in EJ
source amount in EJ
residues from agriculture, forestry and wastes 100
surplus forestry production additional to residues 60-100
primary biomass crops on surplus mainstream
agricultural land
120
primary biomass crops on marginal and
degraded land
70
progress along the learning curve with these
new crops/industries
140
Table 2. Comparison of IEA Scenarios by % Market Share by Fuel
Source at 2030
scenario
coal
%
oil
%
gas
%
nuclear
%
hydro
%
biomass
%
% other
renewables
total
EJ
fossil
%
reference 29 30 22 5 2 10 2 713 81
550 ppm
CO
2
-e
23 30 22 7 3 12 3 649 75
450 ppm
CO
2
-e
17 30 20 9 4 15 5 602 67
(22) Wolf, J.; Bindraban, P. S.; Luijten, J. C.; Vleeshouwers, L. M.
Agric. Syst. 2003, 76, 841.
(23) Hoogwijk, M.; Faaij, A.; de Vries, B.; Turkenburg, W. C. In
Hoogwijk, M. On the Global and Regional Potential of Renewable Energy
Sources; Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht University: 2004.
(24) Hoogwijk, M.; Faaij, A.; Eickhout, B.; de Vries, B.; Turkenburg,
W. C. Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 29 (4), 225.
(25) Obersteiner, M.; Alexandrov, G.; Ben tez, P. C.; McCallum, I.;
Kraxner, F.; Riahi, K.; Rokityanskiy, D.; Yamagate, Y. Mitigat.
Adaptat. Strategies Global Change 2006, 11 (5-6), 1003.
(26) Rokityanski, D.; Benitez, P.; Kraxner, F.; McCallum, I.; Obersteiner,
M.; Rametsteiner, P. C.; Yamagata, Y. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2007,
74 (7), 1057.
(27) Smeets, E. M. W.; Faaij, A. P. C.; Lewandowski, I. M.; Turkenburg,
W. C. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2007, 33 (1), 56.
(28) Bauen, A.; Berndes, G.; Junginger M.; LondoM.; Vuille, F.; Ball,
R.; Bole, T.; Chudziak, C.; Faaij, A.; Mozaffarian, H. Bioenergy ;A
Sustainable and Relaiable Energy Source: A Review of Status and
Prospects; IEA Bioenergy: 2009. Available at www.ieabioenergy.com.
(29) IEA. World Energy Model ; Methodology and Assumptions;
International Energy Agency: Paris, 2008. http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/
weo2008/WEM_Methodology_08.pdf [Accessed June 2009].
(30) IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, Contribution of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, RK; Reisinger, A;
Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, 2007.
5
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
Both studies indicate a relatively small role for bioenergy due
to the economic factors in biomass supply constraining
market penetration to about half the technical potential.
Using an area conversion for biomass in EJ of 4.2 Mha/EJ
(yield 20 green tons/ha/yr at 12 GJ/ton), the 450 ppm CO
2
-e
scenario production area would need to be 374 Mha or about
7.5% of the global agricultural land area. To put this into
context, in terms of land area it is similar to the proportion to
set-aside (withdrawn from production) agricultural land area
in the EU,
3
or in terms of biomass sources, it is not much
greater than the supply of biomass residue and surplus
forestry production predicted to be available in 2050 (see
Table 1). If residue biomass streams take priority in supply,
there would be little role for new primary biomass crop
production.
If primary biomass crops are to take a more prominent role
in future energy supply they will have to be available at
reduced cost or increased value over what has been assumed
inthe studies examinedhere.
1,8,20,21
Increasedvalue may come
frombetter biomass quality, potential for additional or higher
value coproducts, or provision of complementary benefits
within agricultural systems.
Woody crop practice can be designed to be complementary
to conventional agriculture and do this to an extent that may
reduce the effective overall cost of biomass. The potential for
such benefits is implicit in the list of gaps in knowledge
presented by Lysen and van Egmond
20,21
and their proposi-
tion that future cost reduction can be expected due to tech-
nological learning. The complementary benefits of biomass
crops are the theme of the next section.
Complementary Benefits of Woody Crops;Concepts
and Examples
Agroforestry and farmforestry are synonymous terms
for the use of forestry or woody crops within agriculture. This
practice is often motivated by the benefits of using woody
crops in ways that are complementary to agriculture, that is,
where the mixed system can achieve better performance
than either component alone.
31
To achieve complementarity,
woody crops will usually be integrated into the agricultural
systemincarefully designed small blocks, spatial arrays (belts,
buffer strips) or temporal sequences.
32
Awide range of species
may be used, including conventional forestryspecies (for sawn
timber or pulp) or short cycle coppice for wood products and
bioenergy.
19
A key driver of the scientific interest in complementarity is
the concept that a farming systemthat integrates woody crops
with conventional agricultural crops/pasture can more fully
utilize the basic resources of water, carbon dioxide, nutrients,
and sunlight, thereby producing greater total biomass yield.
33
Such complementary performance will be the net result of
enhanced resource use minus the impact of competition
between the woody and agricultural components.
34
It has
proved difficult to rigorously demonstrate complementary
benefits in terms of local scale total biomass yield.
35,36
However, when assessed in the wider context of the eco-
nomic, social, and environmental performance of agrofores-
try systems, complementarity is more readily observed.
Agriculture can generate negative outcomes both internal
(e.g., salinity or erosion on the farm) and external (e.g.,
nutrient enrichment of runoff into streams, CO
2
emissions
especiallyfromlivestock), andthese might oftenbe moderated
by adding a woody crop component.
36,37
A full accounting of
land-use system performance should include direct and indi-
rect costs and benefits.
8
There are many examples of major
agricultural regions where land use sustainability is in ques-
tion and where the biophysical benefits of incorporating
woody crops might be utilized.
The Mississippi basin in the USA is a good example of
highly productive temperate agriculture. Continuing intensi-
fication of agriculture has generated a major problem with
nutrient, sediment, and agrochemical outflow to wetlands,
streams, rivers, and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. The
nitrogendischarge tothe Gulf has createda persistent hypoxic
zone up to 20000 km
2
in extent.
38
It is recognized that the
problem cannot be managed by agronomic practice alone.
The evidence and resolve to implement specifically designed
and managed stream-side buffers or riparian strips along the
vast Mississippi drainage network is emerging.
39,40
These
strips may need to be 15 m wide on each side of a stream
40
and have components with grasses, shrubs, and trees to best
deliver the range of remedial functions. The area withdrawn
from conventional agriculture could be substantial, but the
economic cost could be at least partly offset by use of
commercial species in buffers, an approach which is likely to
hasten adoption. Woody crops, especially short cycle coppice
with its strong nutrient-stripping potential due to regular
harvest, would appear to be well suited to this purpose.
With the rapid economic development in China since the
1980s there has been a surge in expansion of arable agriculture
on steep land (often exceeding 25) in many provinces.
41
In
response to severe erosion, hedgerow intercropping systems
are being developed to control erosion and improve land
productivity. Sun et al.
41
report that farmers are greatly
motivatedby species that deliver these benefits but alsodeliver
direct economic return. There are many options for return,
including local fuel wood supply.
Perhaps the major historic use of trees within agriculture
has been for shelter from wind for erosion control as well as
stock and crop protection. With the intensification of modern
agriculture and more confidence in agronomic management
there appears to be a declining interest in using trees for
shelter. This comes from what was historically a low level of
uptake anyway. Brandle
42
calls for better understanding of
this shortfall inadoption. Cleughet al.
43
indicate the likely key
issue, that is, the total costs of windbreaks (establishment,
competition zone causing adjacent crop suppression) are not
sufficiently offset by the protection gains provided. The only
option is to seek more revenue directly from the trees. Niche
(31) Bartle, J. R. Chapter 16: Integrated production systems. In:
Agroforestry for Natural Resource Management; Nuberg, I.; George, B.;
Reid, R. Eds.; CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood Vic., 2009; p 360.
(32) Stirzaker, R. J.; Cook, F. J.; Knight, J. H. Agric. Water Manage.
1999, 39, 115.
(33) Sanchez, P. A. Agrofor. Syst. 1995, 45, 5.
(34) Cannell, M. G. R.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Ong, C. K. Agrofor.
Syst. 1996, 34, 27.
(35) Ong, C. K.; Leakey, R. R. B. Agrofor. Syst. 1999, 45, 109.
(36) Garcia-Barros, L.; Ong, C. K. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 221.
(37) Pretty, J. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 2008, 363, 447.
(38) Mitsch, W. J.; Day, J. W.; Gilliam, W. J.; Groffman, P. M.; Hey,
D. L.; Randall, G. W.; Wang, N. BioScience 2001, 51, 373.
(39) Dosskey, M. D. Environ. Manage. 2001, 289 (5), 577.
(40) Schultz, R. C.; Isenhart, T. M.; Simpkins, W. W.; Colletti, J. P.
Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 35.
(41) Sun, H.; Tang, Y.; Xie, J. Agrofor. Syst. 2008, 73, 65.
(42) Brandle, J. R.; Hodges, L.; Zhou, X. H. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61,
65.
(43) Cleugh, K.; Prinsley, R.; Bird, R. P.; Brooks, S. J.; Carberry, P.
S.; Crawford, M. C.; Jackson, T. T.; Meinke, H.; Mylius, S. J.; Nuberg,
I.; Sudmeyer, R. A.; Wright, A. J. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2002, 42, 649.
6
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
products or local operations do not have the scale to make a
difference. Bioenergy has the potential to provide large scale
markets, and in spite of the lower height of trees subject to
regular harvest, to provide useful collateral shelter benefits.
Woody crops in agricultural systems can make an impor-
tant contribution to nature conservation by providing habitat
for native plants andanimals; andby ameliorating the impacts
of agriculture on natural ecosystems, for example, by mini-
mizing herbicide and fertilizer drift, and by managing the
downstream impacts of excess water and solutes.
44
These
benefits come as a consequence of any woody crop planting,
but they can be enhanced if included in system planning and
design.
Another major contribution that tree crops can make is to
modify the water balance and hydrology of agricultural
catchments.
45
This provides opportunity to manage stream-
flowvolumes, streamsolute and sediment loads, groundwater
accumulation, water-logging, and water erosion. Southern
Australia has major problems with groundwater accumula-
tioninits mostly very flat agricultural landscapes, anda major
investment has been made in developing woody crops to help
control this problem.
46-48
The next section is a brief case
study of one such crop.
Development of Woody Biomass Crops in Australia
The motivation for the substantial public investment to
develop woody biomass crops for dryland agriculture in
Australia over the past couple of decades has been primarily
environmental. Extensive agricultural development in Aus-
tralia commencedinthe late 1800s. Since thensome 50 Mha of
low relief, mainly winter rainfall (300-600 mm/year) native
woodlandandshrub-landinthe southernhalf of the continent
has been converted to shallow-rooted, annual winter-growing
crops and pastures. This region is commonly known as the
wheatbelt. The change in vegetation cover has reduced evapo-
transpiration by a small but significant amount. Due to low
relief and poor drainage, surplus soilwater is accumulating in
groundwater systems, mobilizing previously stable storedsalts
and discharging saline water into valleys and streams.
49,50
It is estimated that 5 million ha of land has been damaged by
salinity so far, and this could more than double over several
decades until a new hydrologic equilibrium is established.
Damage is not confined to land and water resources. Hydro-
logic change andsalinityonwhole river systems is alsocausing
loss of biodiversity, amenity, increasedfloodrisk, anddamage
to infrastructure.
51
The commercial success of wheatbelt
agriculture has come at the cost of significant hydrological
change and salinization, and especially in Western Australia,
this is eroding its natural resources capital.
One of the options to improve sustainability of these
systems is to complement the annual agricultural crop and
pasture species with commercially attractive tree (or
woody) crops to achieve greater water use and moderate
the hydrologic change. Conventional forestry species used
in higher rainfall areas are not commercially viable in this
rainfall zone,
46
and there are no existing species that would
be viable in the wheatbelt on the necessary scale. Hence new
woody crops had to be developed. The diverse and vigorous
native mallee eucalypt species that were a prominent com-
ponent of the original native vegetation were an obvious
prospect for domestication as short cycle coppice crops.
Over the past two decades considerable progress has been
made in developing mallee to the stage where it might take a
role as a commercially viable component of more sustain-
able agricultural systems.
47,48
Mallee Industry Design and Progress
Development of mallee began in the early 1990s.
47
It was
conceived as a pioneer woody crop industry for the wheatbelt,
initially to be based in Western Australia. It was recognized at
the outset that any new industry would have to be commer-
cially attractive tobe adopted onthe scale necessary tomake a
useful contribution to salinity control. Australian farmers
have survived a generation of decline in real value of their
crops with little government support (4% of gross farm
income) compared to US farmers (20%) and EU farmers
(35%).
52
Salinity benefits have a large external (off-farm)
component and can take 20-30 years to be realized. From
the farm business perspective, the discounted present value of
the internal indirect benefits (e.g., on-farm salinity control) is
too little to make much of a contribution to helping finance
investment in remedial works. Hence, from the farmers
perspective, mallee development had to be driven on its
commercial merits. On the other hand, the substantial public
investment in mallee research and development could be seen
as recognitionof the potential value of external environmental
benefits.
Mallee eucalypts were chosenbecause they are a diverse and
vigorous group of species. Being native species, the genetic
resources are readily accessible, and species adapted to all soil
and site types are available. Mallees have outstanding coppi-
cing ability and can be harvested on a 3-7 year cycle
indefinitely. The range of species being developed was selected
to give coverage across all major soil types. Extensive collec-
tion of germplasm has been undertaken, and breeding and
seed production programs are well advanced. Many mallee
species have a high concentration of oil (called eucalyptus oil)
in their leaves. Eucalyptus oil has small traditional markets
but also has potential for large-scale industrial use.
53,54
Eu-
calyptus oil makes up 1% of green biomass and, in contrast
to the traditional industry, it was never considered likely to
generate sufficient revenue to alone drive a modern industry.
Hence, higher value uses for the wood fraction, and bioenergy
use for the residues, were also important objectives.
(44) Smith, F. P. Landscape Urban Plann. 2008, 86, 66.
(45) Stirzaker, R.; Vertessy, R.; Sarre, A. Trees, Water and Salt, an
Australian Guide to Using Trees for Healthy Catchments and Productive
Farms. Joint Venture Agroforestry Program: Canberra, 2002; p 159.
(46) Bartle, J. R.; Cooper, D.; Olsen, G.; Carslake, J. Conserv. Science
West. Aust. 2002, 4, 96.
(47) Bartle, J. R.; Shea, S. R. Proceedings of the Australian Forest
Growers 2002 National Conference. Private Forestry ; Sustainable
Accountable and Profitable; 2002, pp 243-250.
(48) Bartle, J.; Olsen, G.; Cooper, D.; Hobbs, T. Int. J. Global Energy
Issues 2007, 27 (2), 115.
(49) George, R. J.; McFarlane, D. J.; Nulsen, R. A. Hydrogeol. J.
1997, 5, 6.
(50) Clarke, C. J.; George, R. J.; Bell, R. W.; Hatton, T. J. Aust. J. Soil
Res. 2002, 40, 93113.
(51) National Land and Water Resources Audit. Australian Dryland
Salinity Assessment 2000. Extent, Impacts, Processes, Monitoring and
Management Options. National Land and Water Resources Audit: Canberra,
ACT, 2001; p 129.
(52) Productivity Commission. Trends in Australian Agriculture;
Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, ACT, 2005; p 170.
(53) Coppen, J. J. W. Eucalyptus ;The Genus Eucalyptus; Taylor &
Francis: London, 2002; p 183.
(54) CSIRO Molecular & Health Technologies. Australian Provi-
sional Patent Application No. 2009903333. Cineole 2009. Patent applied
for.
7
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
The design of production systems sets out to replicate what
Australian wheatbelt farmers are accustomed to in grain
production, that is, large scale, low labor input, advanced
technology, and bulk handling systems. For example, analysis
of harvest and supply chain options indicates that a mobile,
large-volume chipper-harvester is required to create a single
raw product stream for delivery to the processing center at
>60 tons/hour. To meet its challenging operating cost target,
the supply chain should be continuous so that there is no
temporary storage involving an unload/reload step from
harvester to the processing plant.
55,56
Agronomic development has been undertaken as part of
operational scale exploratory planting by farmers. Some 20%
of Western Australian wheatbelt farmers (1000 farmers)
have collectively plantedmore than12000 ha of mallee mostly
innarrowbelts (parallel or contour) across crop land designed
to capture surplus water from the adjacent annual crops and
pasture areas. Growers quickly found that dispersed mallees
tolerated sheep grazing, and even with low management
input, did not require fencing, thus avoiding a major cost.
Growers formeda representative industry development group
(Oil Mallee Association) and have prepared a code of practice
and an industry development plan.
57,58
The preparedness of farmers to undertake large-scale test
plantings attracted the interest of potential biomass proce-
ssors. Feasibility investigationwas first undertakenbyEnecon
in 2000.
59
This showed that electricity generation alone would
not be commercially viable, even with the then modest level of
renewable energy credits. However, with integrated proces-
sing of mallee biomass to produce a range of products it was
feasible. Enecon investigated three products;eucalyptus oil,
activated carbon, and electricity;and showed that each
revenue source was critical to commercial viability. They used
a biomass feedstock price that made mallee competitive with
other wheatbelt agricultural options, and therefore attractive
to growers. Following the feasibility study, a 20% scale
demonstration plant was constructed and conducted opera-
tional testing and process refinement during 2006. Commer-
cial development was delayed, apparently awaiting passage of
legislation in the Commonwealth Parliament. The national
Renewable EnergyTarget (RET) scheme has nowbeenpassed
and will expand the previous Mandatory Renewable Energy
Target (MRET) by over four times to45 000GW
3
hby2020.
60
This scale of renewable energy demand is likely to make
bioenergy projects prospective in areas of the State grid where
additional base-load power is required.
Integrated processing is an important conceptual advance.
It allocates each biomass fraction (leaf, bark, woodchip, and
twig) to its highest value product option within an efficient
processing facility. Hence, research has been undertaken to
look at higher value uses for the woodchip fraction, for
example, panel board products, fiber-wood composites,
metallurgical charcoal, biochar for soil amendment, and
carbon products. Similarly, eucalyptus oil appears well suited
to development for industrial solvents and as biomaterials
feedstocks.
53,54
Potential Yield and Scale of Mallee Biomass Production in
the Australian Wheatbelt. In the wheatbelt, pan evaporation
ranges from1600 to 2800 mm/year across latitudes 36-28S,
exceeding rainfall (range 300-600 mm/year) by a factor of
from3 to 9. In this climate water is a major limiting factor for
the growth of perennial woody crops. On the other hand,
annual crops and pastures with shallow root systems and
winter growth cycle are often not able to fully utilize the
winter rainfall and are only able to use a small proportion of
summer rain that enters soil storage. This opens the opportu-
nity to design woody crop planting layouts to capture at least
part of that surplus. Indeed, the extent of capture of that
surplus will determine yield and the size of the contribution
to salinity control. The issue of design for optimum water
capture is therefore crucial.
Optimum designs will involve the use of long narrow belts
planted parallel or on the contour with the conventional
annual crops and pastures in the alley in between. On
suitable soils by age 6-8 years, mallee belts create zones of
extensive vertical (>10 m) and horizontal (up to 20 m)
exhaustion of available soilwater thereby allowing a narrow
belt to create a substantial soilwater sink.
61,62
Belts can there-
fore be designed to passively intercept local surface water
runoff, or toreceive activelyharvestedwater fromnearbyhigh
runoff locations. Existing biomass yield models need to be
coupled with local runoff generation models to improve yield
prediction capability. Furthermore, existing biomass yield
models do not deal adequately with the impact of coppicing
under various seasons and frequencies of harvest.
A conceptual model was developed to examine the avail-
ability of surplus water in the wheatbelt, the increase in yield
this could deliver and the extent to which extra water would
enable economically viable yields to be achieved.
63
This
indicated that narrow belts and wide alleys with only about
a 10% proportion of belts would be near the economic
optimum. This analysis was used to make first estimates of
the total potential mallee biomass production across the
Australian wheatbelt.
48
Energy Balance of Mallee Biomass Production Systems.
Wu et al.
17
analyzed the balance of energy inputs andoutputs
in growing, harvesting, and delivering mallee biomass to a
central processor. The assessment was made for a term of 50
years, where the first harvest or sapling crop takes 5 years to
reach harvestable size and subsequent coppice crops are
taken every 3 years. Over the 50 year production period
there is one initial sapling crop (at 5 years) and 15 coppice
crops (over 45 years).
All activities occurring during the mallee production
period that involve direct nonrenewable energy inputs
(liquid fuels and lubricants, heat, electricity) and/or indirect
energy inputs (fertilizers, agrochemicals, tractors, agricul-
tural machinery, transport equipment, labor, capital) were
(55) Giles, R. C.; Harris, H. D. Developing a biomass supply chainfor
new Australian crops. In Short Rotation Crops for Bioenergy; proceed-
ings IEA Bioenergy Task 30 conference, Tauranga, NZ, December 1-5,
2003.
(56) Yu, Y.; Bartle, J.; Li, C. Z.; Wu, H. Energy Fuels 2009, 23, 3290.
(57) Oil Mallee Association. Mallee Cropping Code of Practice. Joint
Venture Agroforestry Program: Canberra, 2003; p 44.
(58) Oil Mallee Association. Oil Mallee Industry Development Plan for
Western Australia. Forest Products Commission: Perth, 2008; p 103.
Available at http://www.fpc.wa.gov.au/content_migration/_assets/docu-
ments/industry_plans/oil_mallee_idp.pdf [Accessed June 2009].
(59) Enecon Pty Ltd. Integrated Tree Processing of Mallee Eucalypts,
Publication No. 01/160; Rural Industries Research and Development Cor-
poration: Canberra, 2001; p 81. Available at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/
AFT/01-160.pdf [Accessed: June 2009].
(60) Department of Climate Change. Legislation and the Renewable
Energy Regulator. Available at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/renew-
abletarget/legislation.html [Accessed Aug 2009].
(61) Robinson, N.; Harper, R. J.; Smettem, K. R. J. Plant Soil 2006,
286, 141.
(62) Sudmeyer, R. A.; Goodreid, A. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 29, 350.
(63) Cooper, D.; Olsen, G.; Bartle, J. R. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2005, 45,
1369.
8
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
specified. For each input, the energy amount was converted
back to a common base, that is, the equivalent nonrenewable
primary energy required to supply the energy used. The
energy output is the primary energy contained in all mallee
biomass components, that is, wood, bark and twig, and leaf.
The energy ratio (output of energy in biomass/input of
energy in production) was found to be 41.7. This high ratio
reflects the strong competitive position of coppice crops in
energy capture compared to annual or other short-lived
agricultural crops. Coppicing avoids regular replanting in-
puts after every harvest. A high energy ratio is also favored
by the complementary position mallee occupies with annual
agricultural crops, that is, higher mallee yields can be
achieved through capture of surplus water and nutrients.
Economics of Mallee Biomass Production. A model was
constructed to demonstrate the economic performance of a
standard paddock with a dispersed array of two-row mallee
belts occupying8%of the paddockcomparedtothe same pad-
dock under the conventional annual crop and pasture agricul-
ture. The locationis the upper great southernregionof the West-
ern Australian wheatbelt where the rainfall is 450-500 mm/y.
The discounted cash flow technique was used to calculate
and compare the cash flows of conventional agriculture and
mallee crop. Net cash flows are the difference between cash
inflows (derived from yield and price of products) and
cash outflows (operational expenditures on establishment,
management, harvest, and transport). To compare the two
different options it is necessary to use the same project life for
each. Aperiod of 50 years was chosen to provide time for the
value of the long-term mallee investment to become appar-
ent. The agricultural crop rotation was assumed to be
repeated for the same duration using the constant chain of
replacement assumption.
64
To facilitate comparison of the two options the net present
value (NPV) of the discounted cash flow of the options was
calculated to derive the equivalent annual value (EAV).
64
EAV is the annualized equivalent of NPV. The analysis used
the standard operating inputs and assumptions given in
Table 3. Note that all values in Table 3 are in $Australian.
Under these assumptions the equivalent annual value (EAV)
of agriculture is projected to be $164 over the 50 year
duration of the analysis.
Figure 2 shows the cumulative undiscounted cash flows
for both the options; undiscounted cash flow is used here for
clarity and ease of presentation. It shows agricultural cash
flow projection incorporating variability arising from agri-
cultural crop rotations, seasonal change in yields, and mar-
ket price fluctuation. It also shows the cumulative cash flow
per ha for mallee belts alone. There are two mallee cash flows
Table 3. Standard Operating Assumptions for the Economic Analysis in $Australian (2009)
parameter standard value
project duration 50 years.
belt layout two row belts occupying 7m width with alley width of 72m to give a proportion of paddock area occupied of 8%.
establishment cost $800/ha of belt area.
annual management cost $5/ha/year.
harvest regime 5, 3, 3; i.e., first harvest at age 5, coppice cycle every 3 years.
yield above ground 50 green tons/ha of belt area every harvest.
yield below ground below ground biomass grows at 50% of above ground biomass to first harvest. There is a 30% loss of root
biomass on harvest, followed by a net 7.5% gain by the following harvest.
competition loss factor 0.8; i.e., this is the loss of production in the paddock immediately adjacent to the mallee belt as a
proportion of the belt area.
harvest and delivery $26/green ton consisting of harvest, on-farm haulage and delivery to processing point 50 km away.
delivered biomass price $45/green ton (includes all production and supply chain costs).
price for carbon
sequestered in root biomass
projected to rise from $25/ton CO
2
-e in year 1 to $115/ton at year 50.
65
No formal commitment to
emissions control has yet been legislated.
equivalent annual value
(EAV) from agriculture
$164/ha/year; i.e., the annualized NPV from agriculture, derived from a cash flow configured to
reflect seasonal variability.
overall management of mallee
crop and supply chain
to form a consolidated supply requires an estimated 20% of the delivered biomass price given above.
emissions limits on agriculture no emissions limits are currently applied to agricultural practice in Australia.
Figure 2. Cumulative undiscounted cash flow per ha for the mallee belt, the mallee belt with carbon sequestration revenue from root growth,
and for the conventional agriculture.
(64) Peirson, G.; Brown, R.; Easton, S.; Howard, P. Business Finance,
8th ed; McGraw Hill: Sydney, 2002; pp 164-167.
9
Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 29
:
DOI:10.1021/ef9006438
presented: one with revenue being generated by harvest of
above-ground biomass, and the second with the addition of
revenue generated by carbon sequestered in below-ground
biomass. Note that cash flow from the mallee belts does not
exceed that from agriculture until about year 12, and from
then on it remains ahead. Note also that revenue frombelow-
ground carbon sequestration is useful but not critical to the
viability of mallee crops.
When expressed in terms of NPV (discounted at 7%/year
over the 50 year term) the agriculture option has a NPV of
$2269/ha, mallee belts with no carbon is $2706, and mallee
belts withcarbon is $4617. The same results expressed as EAV
are agriculture $164/ha; mallee belt area without below-
ground carbon revenue is $196/ha, and mallee (with carbon)
is $335/ha. Although the cash flow of mallee belts appears
strong when expressed on a per ha basis, belts only constitute
8%of the paddock area, and sothis would be reflected in only
a modest improvement in whole paddock cash flow.
The revenue from carbon sequestered below ground was
assumed to start low ($A25/t CO
2
-e) and rise continuously
over the 50 year period to $115/t as foreshadowed in the
Garnaut Review.
65
This price trajectory was indicated as
necessary to achieve an atmospheric CO
2
-e of 550 ppmunder
the standard technology assumption. Carbon revenues are
assumed to be accounted on an annual change in stocks
basis. The carbon revenues expressed as EAV contribute
$139/ha to the overall mallee belt EAV, or expressed as part
of annual biomass revenue (i.e., $139/ha/17 green tons/ha/y)
it delivers an additional $8/t.
Figure 3 shows how above ground mallee green biomass
varies over time within the 5, 3, 3 harvest cycle. It also shows
how root biomass varies over time. Root biomass accumu-
lates, but its trajectory reflects the harvest cycle because some
30% of root biomass is lost at each harvest, but is restored
and expanded within each harvest cycle. Note that the
amplitude of the root loss/recovery cycle increases over time
because this is likely to be necessary to maintain the health of
the root system and the productivity of the crop.
66
Table 4 shows the results of a sensitivity test of some key
parameters as reflected in change to the EAV. Biomass
selling price is the most sensitive parameter followed by yield
and supply chain costs. These parameters are major targets
for further research. Yield and supply chain design are the
subject of current major research and development projects.
Conclusion
Continuing productivity improvement in global agriculture
and the quickening decline in global population growth rate
may make large areas of agricultural land potentially available
for alternative uses over the next half a century. Bioenergy is
one the fewproduct options with the potential market scale to
fully utilize this opportunity. However, it is generally expected
that bioenergy will have problems winning market share in
competition with other renewable energy options. Careful
development of on and off-farm benefits of bioenergy crops
may demonstrate that conflict with food production is mini-
mal; that the overall cost of bioenergy from woody biomass
feedstocks is quite competitive with other renewables; that
bioenergy canmake a major contributiontoa more productive
and sustainable agriculture; and that a wide range of environ-
mental benefits may be delivered by the proposed systems.
Acknowledgment. The concepts and activities reported here
have been supported by the Natural Resources Branch in the
Department of Environment and Conservation and by the
Future Farm Industries Cooperative Research Centre. The
authors thankclose colleagues andreviewers for critical comment
on drafts of this paper.
Figure 3. Periodic yield of above-ground mallee biomass over time for the 5, 3, 3 harvest cycle and the pattern of below ground biomass
accumulation over time both in green tons/ha.
Table 4. Sensitivity to a (10% Variation in the Major Variables Expressed in the Form of Change in the EAV
EAV
parameter standard input standard 10% -10%
above ground yield at each harvest 50 green tons $335 $374 $295
cost of harvest and delivery to processing center $26/green ton $299 $370
biomass selling price $45/green ton $395 $274
carbon price $20-115 over 50 years $348 $321
(65) Garnaut, R. The Garnaut Climate Change Review: Final Report;
Cambridge University Press: Melbourne, 2008; p 617.
(66) Wildy, D. T.; Pate, J. S. Ann. Bot. 2002, 90, 185.