Cost reduction and efficiency improvement of short rotation coppice (CREFF)

(1)

HAL Id: hal-01267935

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01267935

Submitted on 6 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Cost reduction and eﬀiciency improvement of short rotation coppice (CREFF)

Nicolas Marron, Laureline Bés de Berc, Laura van den Kerchove, Axel Weinreich, Stefanie Haid, Ludger Eltrop, Jan Focke, Thorsten Beimgraben,

Michael Nahm, Franck Brodbeck

To cite this version:

Nicolas Marron, Laureline Bés de Berc, Laura van den Kerchove, Axel Weinreich, Stefanie Haid, et al.. Cost reduction and eﬀiciency improvement of short rotation coppice (CREFF). Projet ERA-NET

”Réduction de coûts et amélioration de l’eﬀicacité des taillis à courte et très courte rotation“ (CREFF).

Réunion de clôture oﬀicielle, Apr 2012, Kraichtal, Allemagne. 28 p. �hal-01267935�

(2)

1

!

" # $ %

&

" ' ( ) * + " ,

' - . /

0 0

' - . /

" ' ( ) / % $$7 8 * " + ,

' 9 0 0 - . /

" ' + ( ) 6 % $ 0 ( ! : %

0 1 %0 * + " ,

' + ; < 0 0 = ! ! !

0 0

( $$ ! $

(3)

2

+ 4 > 9 !

" ' : % $ % : ( )

4 % * + " + ,

' # ? 0 7 ! - . /

" ' ( ) # % # " 0 0

@ # % * + " + ,

' - % 7 $

# =

0 0

A % ? 1 % ( ) $ % 4 0

4 " 4 % % 4> 14 *+ ; ! ( ' ,

> - - . / ! ! *B C 5 ^<0 ,

D ! 4 5 ? ! 4> *+ 0 ? ,

A + 4 0 ( !

@ ! ? ? ( )

- ? ! . / # 44

! ! ! ? - . / - - . /

E - 4 0

(4)

3

. $$ 3 0 ! ? 0

$ 9 % / . !! *. / # 44,

: : : F $$F

(5)

Present geopolitical and environmental world context:

- Rarefaction of fossil fuels

- Needs to reduce CO₂ emissions Promotion of renewable energy Biomass

Context

Short Rotation Coppice (SRC)

(6)

Up to recently, slow development in Europe due to non competitive profits as compared to non-energetic cultures

Expensive plant material

Plant breeding and optimization of species-site matching needed

High harvest and transport costs

Context

Necessity to reduce production and supply costs

(7)

- medium to good sites - for large field sizes Such conditions rarely found in many regions of Central Europe:

- Good sites rare and expensive and used for demanding annual crops SRC on less favorable sites in terms of soil quality and forms

- Average sizes of fields and farms much smaller than in UK and south-Sweden At present, research results available for:

Problem

SRC in small field sizes, at scattered locations and on unfavorable sites

(8)

- medium to good sites - for large field sizes Such conditions rarely found in many regions of Central Europe:

- Good sites rare and expensive and used for demanding annual crops SRC on less favorable sites in terms of soil quality and forms

- Average sizes of fields and farms much smaller than in UK and south-Sweden At present, research results available for:

Problem

To promote the use of biomass from SRC, optimized SRC value chains for unfavorable conditions have to be found

SRC in small field sizes, at scattered locations and on unfavorable sites

(9)

Definition of an optimal, locally adapted production

system for farmers (WP1)

Strategies to overcome the problem of unfavorable

conditions Improvement of efficiency

via a straight consumer-oriented quality production (WP3)

Approach

Overall cost reduction for the SRC-production

^(WP4)

Co-operation for optimized concepts between

producers and consumers (WP5)

Improvement of harvesting techniques and establishment of efficient logistic systems (WP2)

(10)

Economic analyses of value chains Economic analyses of value chains

WP4

WP3

Conditioning Conditioning of wood quality of wood quality

WP2

Harvest Harvest

& Transport

A complementary consortium:

Farmers Farmers

WP1

Plantation Plantation management management

Structure

New business concepts New business concepts

WP5

WP3 WP2

establish early and intensive cooperation between producers and consumers

Industry

WP1

(11)

Plant material Plantation

management

conditionsSite

Asfeld

Semuy Amagne Ambly-Fleury

Vatan Guémené-Penfao

Estrées-Mons

Saint-Cyr-en-Val

Moyenvic Champenoux Pleyber-Christ

Saint-Ségal

Saint-Gilles La prénessaye

Saint-Sulpice -des-Landes

Kerguéhennec Attigny

Echigey La brosse

Montceaux

Brinon-sur-Sauldre Blois

Nouzilly Les Cormiers

Kerlavic

Lamballe

Gennes sur Seiche Le Chesnoy

La ferme du Bouchet

Darnieulles Padoux Sélestat Asfeld

Semuy Amagne Ambly-Fleury

Vatan Guémené-Penfao

Estrées-Mons

Saint-Cyr-en-Val

Moyenvic Champenoux Pleyber-Christ

Saint-Ségal

Saint-Gilles La prénessaye

Saint-Sulpice -des-Landes

Kerguéhennec Attigny

Echigey La brosse

Montceaux

Brinon-sur-Sauldre Blois

Nouzilly Les Cormiers

Kerlavic

Lamballe

Gennes sur Seiche Le Chesnoy

La ferme du Bouchet

Darnieulles Padoux Sélestat

Association d’Initiatives Locales Association d’Initiatives Locales

Nicolas Marron Laureline Bes de Berc

Yield determinants

Reduction of input needs

Reduction of associated costs

Association d’Initiatives Locales pour l’Energie et l’Environnement Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

Forêt, Cellulose, Bois-construction, Ameublement

Chambres d’Agriculture Institut pour le Développement Forestier

Laboratoire des Interactions Microorganismes Minéraux Matière Organique dans les Sols

Association d’Initiatives Locales pour l’Energie et l’Environnement Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

Forêt, Cellulose, Bois-construction, Ameublement

Chambres d’Agriculture Institut pour le Développement Forestier

Laboratoire des Interactions Microorganismes Minéraux Matière Organique dans les Sols

Sites considered together to evaluate the impact of the pedoclimate

And site-specific experiments to evaluate the impact of management practices

(12)

0 0.5 1

-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1

Organic Clay Global radiation Mean temperature Stone

content

Rainfall pH

Sand

2-year stem height Leaf N ∆∆∆∆

PC1 (34.4%) PC2 (24.3%)

Willow + Poplar

Yield determinants

Water use efficiency:

- Biomass produced / Water used - Assimilation / Transpiration

Carbon isotope discrimination (∆∆∆∆, ‰), usually linearly and negatively related to WUE_i

management

conditionsSite

-1

-0.5 N

Organic matter Leaf ∆∆∆∆

Leaf N

Correlations within soil, climate and plant categories

… but few correlation between yield and either soil or climate Indicated that plantation management and plant characteristics are of primary importance for the first rotation (2 seasons)

(13)

management

conditionsSite

Production

Carbon cycle

Nitrogen cycle Water cycle

Optimization

Yield determinants

Irrigation Fertilization Phytosanitary

treatment

WUE

NUE Mixing

N 2 fixation Water input

Cutting frequency

Density

N input

Rotation lengths Cutting calendar

Plant material

Management Management

(14)

NUE

inputN

Rotation lengths Cutting calendar

Plant materialManagement

When should we harvest, spring vs. fall?

Do we have to coppice at the end of the first year?

Is there an optimal planting density?

Is it relevant to chemically fertilize SRC?

Is sludge spreading a relevant practice?

What is the best cultural antecedent?

Yield determinants

WUE

Mixing N₂ fixation

Cutting frequency

Density

Plant materialManagemen

What are/is the “best” species for SRC?

Do we have to use monoclonal blocks or mixtures?

Is wastewater spreading a relevant practice? Back

(15)

NUE

inputN

0 20 40 60 80 100

120 Clump dry weight (kg) ^{Clone ***}

Treatment ^ns CxT ^ns

Clonal mixing

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

Plant materialManagem

0

Pure Origin mixture Total mixture Pure Origin mixture Total mixture Pure Origin mixture Total mixture Pure Origin mixture Total mixture Pure Origin mixture Total mixture Pure Origin mixture Total mixture Pure Origin mixture Total mixture

Beaupré Bolaere Hunnegen Raspalje Triplo Cima Luisa Avanzo

More info?

or

(16)

NUE

inputN

Harvest season

200 300 400 500 600

700 Main stem height (cm) one year after harvest and two years after harvest

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

Is wastewater spreading a relevant practice?

0 100

0

Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Harvest:

Back More info?

or

(17)

NUE

inputN

First year coppicing

100 200 300 400 500

600 Clump dry weight (g) Coppicing ***

Clone **

CxC ^ns

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

0

Uncoppiced Coppiced Uncoppiced Coppiced Uncoppiced Coppiced

Inger Tora Tordis

More info?

or

(18)

NUE

inputN

Planting density

3 4 5

6 Tree fresh weight (kg)

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

0 1 2

22.0

ns

I214 Bakan I214 Triplo

SRC Very SRC

or

(19)

NUE

inputN

What is the best cultural antecedent?Chemical fertilization

2 2.5

3 Clump dry weight (kg) Clone ^ns

Fertilization ^ns CxF ^ns

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

Do we have to use monoclonal blocks or mixtures?⁰

0.5 1 1.5

Unfertilized Fertilized Unfertilized Fertilized Unfertilized Fertilized

Dorskamp I214 Koster

More info?

or

(20)

NUE

inputN

Sludge spreading

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

Is wastewater spreading a relevant practice? Back

More info?

or

(21)

NUE

inputN

Cultural antecedent

WUE

Density

Cultural antecedent

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

900 Tree height (cm)

17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5

Amagne (grassland) Asfeld (grassland) Ambly-Fleury (maize) Semuy (maize) Carbon isotope discrimination (‰)

More info?

or

(22)

NUE

inputN

Species

Dry weight (g)

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

15 115 215 315 415 515 615

715Dry weight (g)

Main stem Total

A

B

B b

a

b

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Carbonisotope discrimination (∆∆∆∆, ‰)

LeavesWood LeavesWood Leaves

A A

B

!

"

!

"

or

(23)

NUE

inputN

Yield determinants

WUE

Density

Wastewater spreading

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000

Control Wastewater Whey

A A B AB B B

Dry mass (g) of dominant stem and clump

Stem Clump

More info?

or

(24)

(25)

Economic analyses of value chains Economic analyses of value chains

WP4

WP3

Conditioning Conditioning of wood quality of wood quality

WP2

Harvest Harvest

& Transport

A complementary consortium:

WP1

Plantation Plantation management management

Structure

New business concepts New business concepts

WP5

WP3 WP2

establish early and intensive cooperation between producers and consumers

Industry

WP1

(26)

In conclusion

- SRC not competitive with traditional crops on medium/good sites - SRC can be an opportunity to valorize unused unfavorable sites

- Some advices / recommendations to optimize the chances of success and profitability:

• To establish producer – consumer co-operations

• To define from the beginning the biomass end use

• To adapt the plantation design to the requirements

• To use plant material using efficiently resources or fixing atmospheric N

• To use the plantation to valorize residual/waste products, when possible(e.g. sludge)

• To plant mixture of species or varieties rather than monocultures

• To plan harvest and logistic operation well in advance

• To choose the conditioning method according to the planned end use

But financial support is needed to be profitable!

• … (much more in the CREFF guidelines and reports!)

(27)

General and specific guidelines and recommendations

Survey questionnaires (HFR, IER, UNIQUE) and recommendations

(28)

Freiburg, September 2009

Selestat, June 2009 Rottenburg, February 2010

Vosges, February 2009

Moyenvic, July 2010 Rottenburg, October 2011 Blois, October 2008

(29)

Freiburg, September 2009

Selestat, June 2009 Rottenburg, February 2010

Vosges, February 2009

Thank

Moyenvic, July 2010 Rottenburg, October 2011

Blois, October 2008

Thank

you!

Plantation management: INRA Nancy - Nicolas Marron (marron@nancy.inra.fr)

Laureline Bes de Berc (lbesdeberc@nancy.inra.fr)

Business concept: UNIQUE Freiburg – Laura Van den Kerchove (Laura.VdKerchove@unique-landuse.de) Axel Weinreich (Axel.Weinreich@unique-landuse.de)

Economic analysis: IER Stuttgart – Stefanie Haid (stefanie.haid@ier.uni-stuttgart.de) Ludger Eltrop (ludger.eltrop@ier.uni-stuttgart.de) Conditioning: HFR Rottenburg – Jan Focke (focke@hs-rottenburg.de)

Thorsten Beimgraben (beimgraben@hs-rottenburg.de)