U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Fort Collins, Colorado
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Research Publications at this Location





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications

Title:   Author  item
                                            SHEEHAN, JOHN - Colorado State Universityitem
                                            Adler, Paulitem
                                            Del Grosso, Stephen

                                                         - *Steve*item
                                            EASTER, M - Colorado State Universityitem
                                            PARTON, WILLIAM - Colorado State Universityitem
                                            PAUSTIAN, KEITH - Colorado State Universityitem
                                            WILLIAMS, S - Colorado State University
  Submitted to: Nature Climate Change
                                    Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
                                    Publication Acceptance Date: 9/2/2014
                                    Publication  Date: 10/29/2014
                                    Citation: Sheehan, J., Adler, P.R., Del Grosso, S.J., Easter, M., Parton, W., Paustian, K., Williams, S. 2014. CO2 emissions from crop residue-derived biofuels. [Letter to the Editor]. Nature Climate Change. 4:932–933. doi:10.1038/nclimate2403.Interpretive Summary:   The claim by Liska et al. that corn stover-derived ethanol can be worse than gasoline has generated lots of media interest, but offers little value to the research community or to policymakers. They have merely demonstrated that if you model an irresponsible and unsustainable scenario, the results will look irresponsible and unsustainable. No one who has given serious thought to crop residues for biofuels would find their proposed across-the-board 6 Mg ha-1 collection rate in the US Corn Belt at all reasonable. 
  A decade ago, Sheehan et al. used soil carbon and life cycle assessment (LCA) modelling to show that corn stover for ethanol would only make sense if farmers simultaneously adopted conservation tillage practices and constrained removal rates to account for local yield, soil, climate and topographical conditions. Numerous other field and modelling studies have shown that soil carbon levels can be maintained with conservation tillage and moderate stover removal. 
  In contrast, Liska et al. applied a very simplistic soil carbon model that ignores important variables such as soil moisture and soil texture — making regional extrapolations highly questionable — and doesn’t allow for varying management practices. This is an important shortcoming, as farmers can reduce their tillage intensity with stover harvest, saving money, without compromising yields. Figure 1a illustrates these weaknesses when net changes in soil carbon emissions are modelled with DayCent (the analysis was using the DayCent model version used in the most recent US national greenhouse-gas emissions inventory: www.epa.gov/climatechange/ ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html) for the Mead, Nebraska site in Liska et al.’s study. 
  The results for 50% stover removal at this site are consistent with the 6 Mg ha-1 collection scenario used by Liska and co-authors. With a continuation of existing tillage practices, soil carbon losses over the first 10 years average 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1, comparable to the value of 0.47 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 reported by Liska and co-workers. Adoption of conservation tillage reduces soil carbon losses to almost zero, while including a cover crop can yield net soil carbon increases. 
  The problems with the scenario of Liska et al. do not end at the farm. They took another extreme position by ignoring the carbon savings associated with coproduct electricity in the conversion facility. Figure 1b puts their assumptions for the farm and the biorefinery in an LCA context. Non-soil carbon emissions are taken from a recent LCA by the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Here, we focus on the 50% collection scenario in Fig. 1a. Combining the assumptions of unchanged tillage and no electricity credit made by Liska et al., we too can generate a carbon footprint that is slightly worse than that of gasoline. Adoption of conservation tillage and proper accounting of the coproduct credit brings the footprint of ethanol below the Renewable Fuel Standard requirement for advanced biofuels. Adopting cover-crop strategies could make ethanol almost carbon neutral. 
  The study by Liska et al. is symptomatic of a broader problem in the realm of LCA. Had they followed International Organization for Standardization standards10 and engaged stakeholders in the design of this study, instead of unilaterally making extreme and unsustainable assumptions, they might have ended up evaluating more useful scenarios. This is a mistake all too commonly found in the LCA literature.
                                Technical Abstract:   The claim by Liska et al. that corn stover-derived ethanol can be worse than gasoline has generated lots of media interest, but offers little value to the research community or to policymakers. They have merely demonstrated that if you model an irresponsible and unsustainable scenario, the results will look irresponsible and unsustainable. No one who has given serious thought to crop residues for biofuels would find their proposed across-the-board 6 Mg ha-1 collection rate in the US Corn Belt at all reasonable. 
  A decade ago, Sheehan et al. used soil carbon and life cycle assessment (LCA) modelling to show that corn stover for ethanol would only make sense if farmers simultaneously adopted conservation tillage practices and constrained removal rates to account for local yield, soil, climate and topographical conditions. Numerous other field and modelling studies have shown that soil carbon levels can be maintained with conservation tillage and moderate stover removal. 
  In contrast, Liska et al. applied a very simplistic soil carbon model that ignores important variables such as soil moisture and soil texture — making regional extrapolations highly questionable — and doesn’t allow for varying management practices. This is an important shortcoming, as farmers can reduce their tillage intensity with stover harvest, saving money, without compromising yields. Figure 1a illustrates these weaknesses when net changes in soil carbon emissions are modelled with DayCent (the analysis was using the DayCent model version used in the most recent US national greenhouse-gas emissions inventory: www.epa.gov/climatechange/ ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html) for the Mead, Nebraska site in Liska et al.’s study. 
  The results for 50% stover removal at this site are consistent with the 6 Mg ha-1 collection scenario used by Liska and co-authors. With a continuation of existing tillage practices, soil carbon losses over the first 10 years average 0.43 Mg C ha-1 yr-1, comparable to the value of 0.47 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 reported by Liska and co-workers. Adoption of conservation tillage reduces soil carbon losses to almost zero, while including a cover crop can yield net soil carbon increases. 
  The problems with the scenario of Liska et al. do not end at the farm. They took another extreme position by ignoring the carbon savings associated with coproduct electricity in the conversion facility. Figure 1b puts their assumptions for the farm and the biorefinery in an LCA context. Non-soil carbon emissions are taken from a recent LCA by the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Here, we focus on the 50% collection scenario in Fig. 1a. Combining the assumptions of unchanged tillage and no electricity credit made by Liska et al., we too can generate a carbon footprint that is slightly worse than that of gasoline. Adoption of conservation tillage and proper accounting of the coproduct credit brings the footprint of ethanol below the Renewable Fuel Standard requirement for advanced biofuels. Adopting cover-crop strategies could make ethanol almost carbon neutral. 
  The study by Liska et al. is symptomatic of a broader problem in the realm of LCA. Had they followed International Organization for Standardization standards10 and engaged stakeholders in the design of this study, instead of unilaterally making extreme and unsustainable assumptions, they might have ended up evaluating more useful scenarios. This is a mistake all too commonly found in the LCA literature.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov