Environmental tradeoffs of stover removal and erosion in Indiana

: When considering the market for biomass from corn stover resources, the consequences of soil erosion and soil quality issues are important considerations. Removal of stover can be beneficial in some areas, especially when coordinated with other conservation practices, such as vegetative barrier strips and cover crops. However, benefits are highly dependent on several factors, namely if farmers see costs and benefits associated with erosion and the tradeoffs with the removal of biomass. Although typically considered an internal cost, the implication is important to policy and contracting for biomass. This paper uses results from an integrated RUSLE2/WEPS model to incorporate six different regime choices, covering management, harvest, and conservation, into a simple profit maximization model to show these tradeoffs explicitly. The results of this work show how different costs for erosion, biomass, and conservation management will affect behavior. If the private costs of erosion are low and no conservation requirement exists, biomass removal will significantly increase erosion, but only in some areas. Alternatively, when erosion prices are high, farmers will parallel socially optimal levels of erosion, and conservation management practices can be incentivized through access to a market for stover. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

[1]  G. Bultena,et al.  Factors affecting farmers' adoption of conservation tillage , 1983 .

[2]  S. Nusser,et al.  Are cover crops being used in the US corn belt , 2007 .

[3]  David J. Muth,et al.  Sustainable agricultural residue removal for bioenergy: A spatially comprehensive US national assessment , 2013 .

[4]  E. Barbier The Farm-Level Economics of Soil Conservation: The Uplands of Java , 1990 .

[5]  Paul W. Gallagher,et al.  Supply and Social Cost Estimates for Biomass from Crop Residues in the United States , 2003 .

[6]  Robert D. Perlack,et al.  Current and potential U.S. corn stover supplies. , 2007 .

[7]  W. D. Kemper,et al.  Soil organic matter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production , 1995 .

[8]  John C. Tyndall,et al.  Corn stover as a biofuel feedstock in Iowa’s bio-economy: An Iowa farmer survey , 2011 .

[9]  D. Pimentel,et al.  Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits , 1995, Science.

[10]  D. Montgomery Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Kenneth E. McConnell,et al.  An Economic Model of Soil Conservation , 1983 .

[12]  Wallace E. Tyner,et al.  The Economics of Biomass Collection and Transportation and Its Supply to Indiana Cellulosic and Electric Utility Facilities , 2011, BioEnergy Research.

[13]  V. R. Tolbert,et al.  Potential environmental effects of corn (Zea mays L.) stover removal with emphasis on soil organic matter and erosion , 2002 .

[14]  James A. Larson,et al.  Risk Effects of Alternative Winter Cover Crop, Tillage, and Nitrogen Fertilization Systems in Cotton Production , 2001, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

[15]  Emerson D. Nafziger,et al.  Continuous Corn Response to Residue Management and Nitrogen Fertilization , 2008 .

[16]  W. Deen,et al.  Carbon sequestration in a long-term conventional versus conservation tillage experiment , 2003 .

[17]  Rattan Lal,et al.  Managing U.S. cropland to sequester carbon in soil , 1999 .

[18]  Jane M. F. Johnson,et al.  Corn Stover to Sustain Soil Organic Carbon Further Constrains Biomass Supply , 2007 .