Coupling Sustainable Production Analysis to Field Trial DataDave Muth, Idaho National Laboratory

U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Biomass Program

February 23, 2010

Sustainable Resource Access

Limiting factor models exist,

We’re building a framework where models can plug together.

Technical Approach

Data Sources:Soils

WeatherProduction

Management

I-FARM:User InterfacesData Acquisition

Scenario Management

RUSLE2:Soil Erosion

CQESTR:Soil Organic

Carbon

I-FARM P,K,& N Routines:Nutrient

Management

FY09 Addition:Soil Water and Temperature

FY09 Addition:Environmental Degradation

VE-SuiteIntegrationFramework:Data Spec,Dynamic

Integration

Case Study Scenarios:Ames, IA

Lincoln, NE

FY09 Addition:Soil Compaction

Results

Analysis Framework Architecture

Case Study: Ames, IA 25 Acre Experiment

Current Analysis Approach: Erosion alone indicates that full

removal is sustainable

Managements:· Conventional Tillage – Chisel Plow· No Tillage· No Till with Rye Cover Crop· No Till with Interseeded legume and Clover Cover Crop

Erosion (T=5.0) (t/acre/yr)

Removal Rate Conv Till No Till

0% 1.3 0.11

50% 4.3 0.42

100% 4.7 2.3

Analysis with SOC: Conventional tillage does not

provide sustainable resource, limited availability through no till

  SOC (lbs/acre/yr)

Removal Rate Conv Till No Till

0% -67.76 52.55

50% -101.95 21.69

100% -121.26 -15.02

Implementing Innovative Management Strategies:

Consistent sustainable resource available

  SOC (lbs/acre/yr)

Removal Rate

NT w/Rye Cover

NT w/Legume +

Clover Cover

0% 116.82 204.99

50% 78.25 171.24

100% 39.12 130.25

Potential value added through other ecosystem services:• Carbon sequestration• Reduced nutrient runoff• Reduced erosion

Utilizing Field Trial Data Through the Residue Removal Tool

Data Sources:Soils

WeatherProduction

Management

I-FARM:User InterfacesData Acquisition

Scenario Management

RUSLE2:Soil Erosion

CQESTR:Soil Organic

Carbon

I-FARM P,K,& N Routines:Nutrient

Management

FY09 Addition:Soil Water and Temperature

FY09 Addition:Environmental Degradation

VE-SuiteIntegration

Framework:Data Spec,Dynamic

Integration

Case Study Scenarios:Ames, IA

Lincoln, NE

FY09 Addition:Soil Compaction

Results

NRCS Soil Data Access Queries by

State

NASS Based Crop Yields by County

NRCS Established Primary Rotations

by Crop Management Zone

NRCS Established Residue Removal

Techniques by Rotation

Scenario Assembly Data

Structures

Iterative Schema with

Integrated Model Set

Data Extraction

and Results Writing

RUSLE2 Databases

• Sustainable ag residue removal for national resource assessment

Implemented in a highly efficient iterative schema

CMZ 4 Rotations

• managements\CMZ 04\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Biomass Harvest\Continuous corn grain; NT

• managements\CMZ 04\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Biomass Harvest\Corn, grain; NT, SB NT, WW NT CMZ4

• managements\CMZ 04\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Biomass Harvest\corn grain;NT, corn grain;NT, Soybean, wr

• managements\CMZ 04\c.Other Local Mgt Records\Biomass Harvest\corn grain;NT,anhyd, Soybean, nr, NT Single disk z4

flail shredder/windrower

bar rake

wheel rake

Modeled Removal Rates - Corn Stover

1) No Stover Removal

2) Grain and Cobs: CCM on combine mix

3) Moderate Removal: Combine residue spreader disengaged, bale windrow left behind

4) Moderately High Removal: Bar rake run over standing stubble, bale windrow

5) High Residue Harvest: Flail shredder cutting standing stubble and collecting flat residue, bale windrow

Adair County, Iowa

212 Kennebec Silt Loam 0% to 2% Slope

Adair County, Iowa Example212 Kennebec Silt Loam 0% to 2% Slope

10 Year Average Yield:Management + Removal Rate

Calculated Erosion

SCI OM Subfactor

Annual Average Residue

(lbs)Corn Grain

Yield

Continuous corn grain; NT, Harvest grain and cobs 0.1660717 0.320423 1891.345 149.9

Continuous corn grain; NT, High residue Harvest 1.1931644 -0.60299 7070.866 149.9

Continuous corn grain; NT, Moderate Residue Harvest 0.2281336 0.13634 2905.457 149.9

Continuous corn grain; NT, Moderately High residue Harvest 0.5972384 -0.12565 4542.535 149.9

Continuous corn grain; NT no stover harvest 0.0889718 0.784717 0 149.9

USDA 10 Year Baseline Projection:

USDA 10 Year Baseline Projection plus 10%:

Continuous corn grain; NT, Harvest grain and cobs 0.1194257 0.498468 2180.272 174.3

Continuous corn grain; NT, High residue Harvest 1.0937827 -0.566 8151.033 174.3

Continuous corn grain; NT, Moderate Residue Harvest 0.1699904 0.286264 3349.304 174.3

Continuous corn grain; NT, Moderately High residue Harvest 0.5033516 -0.01575 5236.466 174.3

Continuous corn grain; NT no stover harvest 0.0675342 1.029399 0 174.3

Continuous corn grain; NT, Harvest grain and cobs 0.0975953 0.625653 2386.666 191.73

Continuous corn grain; NT, High residue Harvest 1.0297659 -0.53958 8922.644 191.73

Continuous corn grain; NT, Moderate Residue Harvest 0.1386611 0.393361 3666.363 191.73

Continuous corn grain; NT,Moderately High residue Harvest 0.4473739 0.062759 5732.172 191.73

Continuous corn grain;NT no stover harvest 0.0560973 1.204186 0 191.73

Results For RP Field Trial Counties

FIPS County StateAcres in Rotation

Annual Residue (lbs)

Annual Residue

(tons)

Annual Residue

(tons/acre)

Corn

YieldRet. Coeff

IA015 Boone County Iowa 269120

1,351,500,000

675,751 2.51097 193.4 0.18787

MN149 Stevens County Minnesota 187320

828,155,000

414,077 2.21054 164.5 0.173718

NE155Saunders

County Nebraska 258151

817,977,000

408,988 1.5843 149.1 0.352557

PA081Lycoming

County Pennsylvania 27440 14,504,500

7,252 0.264296 128.8 0.894568

SC041 Florence CountySouth

Carolina 48935 61,318,600 30,659 0.626532 101.1 0.589174

SD011Brookings

County South Dakota 141595

625,366,000

312,683 2.20829 152.3 0.157432

Other Notes and Future Plans

• National Assessment capabilities will be part of the core tool over the next few months

• Quantitative carbon will brought online and used to revise the national runs over the next year

• DAYCENT developers joining the team for quantitative carbon modeling

• Significant I-Farm enhancements will be utilized within the tool over the next 6-9 months

• Discussions and planning on moving sub-field will ramp up over the next year