4.6 Article

Corn Stover Nutrient Removal Estimates for Central Iowa, USA

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 8621-8634

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su7078621

关键词

plant nutrients; source carbon; fertilizer replacement costs; feedstock quality; EZ bales

资金

  1. USDA-ARS National Laboratory for Agriculture and Environment (NLAE)
  2. Iowa State University (ISU) Agronomy and Agricultural Biosystems Engineering Research Center (AABERC)
  3. USDA-ARS Resilient Economic Agricultural Practices (REAP) project
  4. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office's Regional Feedstock Partnership Corn Stover Team under DOE award [DE-FC36-05GO85041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the most frequent producer-asked questions to those persons striving to secure sustainable corn (Zea mays L.) stover feedstock supplies for Iowa's new bioenergy conversion or other bio-product facilities is what quantity of nutrients will be removed if I harvest my stover? Our objective is to summarize six years of field research from central Iowa, U.S.A. where more than 600, 1.5 m(2) samples were collected by hand and divided into four plant fractions: vegetative material from the ear shank upward (top), vegetative material from approximately 10 cm above the soil surface to just below the ear (bottom), cobs, and grain. Another 400 stover samples, representing the vegetative material collected directly from a single-pass combine harvesting system or from stover bales were also collected and analyzed. All samples were dried, ground, and analyzed to determine C, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Al, B, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn concentrations. Mean concentration and dry matter estimates for each sample were used to calculate nutrient removal and estimate fertilizer replacement costs which averaged $25.06, $20.04, $16.62, $19.40, and $27.41 Mg-1 for top, bottom, cob, stover, and grain fractions, respectively. We then used the plant fraction estimates to compare various stover harvest scenarios and provide an answer to the producer question posed above.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据