## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Crop**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2017**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2018**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **2H (VD)** & **2H (O)** & **1H (O)** & **2H (VD)** & **2H (O)** & **1H (O)** \\ \hline Sida1 planting & 509.6 \(\pm\) 9.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 506.9 \(\pm\) 4.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 508.1 \(\pm\) 27 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 512.0 \(\pm\) 2.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Sida1 seed & 505.2 \(\pm\) 4.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 509.7 \(\pm\) 2.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 505.4 \(\pm\) 31.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 512.4 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Sida2 planting & 506.0 \(\pm\) 46.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 514.2 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 508.6 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 508.6 \(\pm\) 8.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Sida2 seed & 505.0 \(\pm\) 4.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 512.6 \(\pm\) 3.0 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 507.4 \(\pm\) 3.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 506.7 \(\pm\) 2.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Silphium planting & 490.8 \(\pm\) 4.7 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 490.1 \(\pm\) 4.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 502.7 \(\pm\) 2.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 491.8 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 499.8 \(\pm\) 6.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 495.5 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\ Silphium seed & 483.5 \(\pm\) 2.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 490.1 \(\pm\) 2.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 504.2 \(\pm\) 5.9 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 485.3 \(\pm\) 2.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 502.1 \(\pm\) 3.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 501.6 \(\pm\) 1.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data marked with the same letters do not differ statistically according to [PERSON]’s test at \(p\leq 0.05\). Uppercase letters indicate the effect of type of energy crop, lowercase letters indicate the date of harvest.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Mean values of specific biogas yield (SBY) of the analysed crops biomass, L kgDM\({}^{-1}\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Crop**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2017**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2018**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **2H (VD)** & **2H (O)** & **1H (O)** & **2H (VD)** & **2H (O)** & **1H (O)** \\ \hline Sida1 planting & 51.0 \(\pm\) 0.9 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 52.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 52.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Sida1 seed & 51.1 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.0 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 52.5 \(\pm\) 3.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Sida2 planting & 51.1 \(\pm\) 4.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 50.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 52.8 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.9 \(\pm\) 0.8 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Sida 2 seed & 51.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 50.8 \(\pm\)0.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - & 52.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & - \\ Silphium planting & 52.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.6 \(\pm\) 0.5 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.5 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.7 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\ Silphium seed & 52.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.3 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.3 \(\pm\) 0.6 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 52.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) & 51.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\rm\AA}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data marked with the same letters do not differ statistically according to [PERSON]’s test at \(p\leq 0.05\). Uppercase letters indicate the effect of the method of establishing the plantation, lowercase letters indicate the date of harvest.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean values of biomethane content in specific biogas yield (SBY) of the analysed crops biomass, %. crop harvested only once--on the means calculated for the results obtained from two years of sowing and planting, the results were 8598 and 7861 m\({}^{3}\) ha\({}^{-1}\), respectively. The method of setting-up the plantation had a significant effect on BY in the case of Sida2, for which it was on average 60% higher in the case of biomass obtained from the plantation set-up by planting, as compared with biomass from the plantation set-up by sowing (for the remaining crops, the calculated differences proved to be insignificant).