in state feedstock crop production for california ... · late january in california. a comparison...
TRANSCRIPT
In‐state feedstock crop production for California biodiesel producers using winter annual oilseed crops
Stephen Kaffka*, Nic George, Boon‐Ling YeoUniversity of California, Davis &California Biomass Collaborative
Argonne National Lab/October 26, 2015*[email protected]/530‐752‐8108
Biofuel Facilities (2013 data)(MGY) Facilities
Ethanol 179 4Biodiesel 62.1 13Totals 241.1 17
Most biofuel facilities are biodiesel manufacturers using residual Fats, Oils, and Greases (FOG) and some vegetable oil; there are 4 larger ethanol facilities using imported corn grain, attempting a shift to grain sorghum. To expand in‐state biodiesel production, more imported FOG or in‐state oilseed feedstocks are needed.
On an agro‐ecological basis, there are many feedstock crop possibilities in
California
Grain and sweet sorghum
Camelina
Canola, mustardsSalt‐tolerant perennial grasses on “marginal” lands
Energy beets
In‐state feedstock production?
• Distinctive characteristics of California’s agricultural regions
• Agronomic trials and results• Economic/agronomic modeling and ILUC
California Production Differs from Other States
California Iowa Texas Nebraska Illinois$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Food-plant $16,490,102 $23,681 $593,523 $66,434 $116,780Food-animal $10,793,300 $10,007,347 $14,167,468 $8,624,935 $2,422,917Feed $2,408,398 $10,225,065 $3,971,174 $6,735,085 $10,318,090Fiber $409,272 $32,159 $1,217,333 $8,058 $5,218Ornamentals $3,725,194 $107,520 $987,533 $50,937 $458,294Other $58,798 $22,324 $64,042 $20,585 $7,807Total Value $33,885,064 $20,418,096 $21,001,074 $15,506,034 $13,329,106
USDA, NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Jenner
California farmers tend to produce food crops while in other states, more feed and industrial crops are produced. Food crops are higher in value and more diverse. USDA did not predict any bioenergy feedstock production in CA in its 2010 roadmap.
Soil age:
oldest 100K 30-80K 10K youngest
Hardpans, thick clay layers, (vernal pools)
Soils with structured horizons
A: Bt: C
High clay content, drainage limitations, salinity , alkalinity
Silts, loams low OM, crusting
Oak-savanna/rangelands
rangeland/pasture, some perennials
perennials, annuals mostly annualsSoil use
Basin rim Natural levees
350K
Diverse soils and landscapes lead to differing cropping systems in CA
Hyp: Landscape diversity leads to opportunities not recognized at a larger scale.
Per Acre Profit for 45 Regional Farming Systems (2007 data)_Jenner
NCA: Sacramento Valley; CEN: Delta and northern SJV; SCA: Tulare, Kings, Kern; SCA: Imperial Valley, Palo Verde, San Diego; COA: Salinas Valley, Santa Maria, Ventura
There is significant regional diversity in the character of farming systems throughout the state, providing opportunity in some locations for new crop enterprises.
In‐state feedstock production?
• Distinctive characteristics of California’s agricultural regions
• Agronomic trials and results• Economic/agronomic modeling and ILUC
Seed oil content and yield of canola at different planting dates in southwestern Australia [15]. Dates are equivalent to planting between late October and late January in California.A comparison between the climates of Davis, CA,
and the town of Northam, Western Australia, which is a successful canola production area.
Extensive agronomic and plant breeding programs in Australia have relevance in California.
S
N
EW
INYO
KERN
SAN BERNARDINO
FRESNO
RIVERSIDE
SISKIYOU
TULARE
LASSEN
MODOC
MONO
SHASTA
IMPERIAL
TRINITY
SAN DIEGO
TEHAMA
HUMBOLDT
PLUMAS
MONTEREY
MENDOCINO
LOS ANGELES
LAKE
BUTTE
MADERAMERCED
KINGS
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
GLENN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLACER
YOLOSONOMA
SANTA BARBARA
EL DORADO
NAPA
COLUSA
MARIPOSA
SIERRA
STANISLAUS
YUBA
NEVADA
SANBENITO
SANJOAQUIN
ALPINE
SOLANO
SANTA CLARA
ORANGE
DELNORTE
CALAVERAS
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SUTTER
SACRA-MENTO
AMADOR
CONTRA COSTA
SAN MATEO
SANTA CRUZ
SAN FRANCISCO
MOJAVE DESERT
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
NORTH COAST
NORTHEAST PLATEAU
SACRAMENTO VALLEY
GREAT BASIN VALLEYS
MOUNTAIN COUNTIES
SALTON SEA
SOUTH COAST
SOUTH CENTRAL COAST
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
SAN DIEGO
NORTH CENTRAL COAST
LAKE LAKE TAHOE
Air Basins are Delineated by Bold Black Text Labelsand Grey Boundary Lines.
Counties are Delineated by Smaller Text Labelsand Thin Black Boundary Lines.
California Environmental Protection AgencyAir Resources Board
0 50 100 150 200 Miles
TulelakeYreka
Williams
Davis
Lodi
West Side
Paso Robles
Desert Research Station
Shandon
Parlier
Research sites located across the state
120 canola & 105 camelina varieties from 14 public & private breeding programs
120 canola & 105 camelina varieties from 14 public & private breeding programs
The mean yield for canola in California across all locations & seasons
Weather and soil moisture measurement at most sites
Canola Camelina
Maximum water use was 480 mm for canola & for 320 mm for camelina. Total water use is similar to or less than winter wheat.
Above: Dry-farmed landscapes in California (alternate crop-fallow farming systems). Below: Similar winter annual oilseed trials planted during 2012, approximately 30 miles apart. Accurately capturing and quantifying local-scale variation is essential to properly predict bioenergy crop adoption effects.
Dry-farmed safflower in coastal valley locations.
Some winter oilseeds may be grown as cover crops in orchards and vineyards, and as bee pastures. Est: 100K ac/y
Modeled Erosion(Mg/ha/yr)
2 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 18
19 - 24
25 - 31
Erosion losses do not differ between biofuel crops and standard crops and modeled values correspond with literature results emphasizing that slope and winter cover are extremely important.
When used as cover crops in orchards and vineyards, biofuel crops reduce erosion compared to fallow and require no new land. They may be grown in orchard and vineyard middles.
Alternatively, they may be used in dry-farmed systems during the winter season, when a majority of rainfall occurs and cover is needed most. Camelina shows particular potential as a cover crop and in dry-farmed conditions thanks to its low water and nutrient demands. Its use may also increase the frequency of crops in dry-farmed systems compared to more water intensive alternatives.
Salls and Kaffka, 2014
In-state feedstock production?• Distinctive characteristics of California’s
agricultural regions• Agronomic trials and results• Economic/agronomic modeling and
ILUC
Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM) use is based on land use patterns derived from analysis of Pesticide Use Report data (California Department of Pesticide Regulation) over multiyear periods. This data reports farmer choices of what they grew and where they grew it, and embodies all the factors used to make such decisions. Regionalized incumbent cropping patters are derived from this data and used to estimate entry prices, location and extent of new crop adoption.
California Bioenergy Crop Adoption Model (BCAM). BCAM is a crop rotation optimization model that estimates prices needed for new crops and crop
displacement. It can be applied at the regional or farm level
AX jgi e
jeig ,,,, Subject to: j= {acres, ac-ft of water}
PMP function
Energy crop function
g je
jgejgejgejge
ijigjigjigjigjigjig
XCYPXCXP
MaxX jige ,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,
Production function
P e,g,i,j = farm price of crop i, and energy crop e, in region g, and resource, j.C e,g,i,j = farm cost of crop i, and energy crop e, in region g, and resource, j.Y e,g,i,j = yield of crop, i, and energy crop e, in region, g, and resource, j.X e,g,i,j = level of hectares r applied to energy crop e, in region g for crop i.Ᾱg,j = constrained hectares of crop j in region g.β g,i,j = intercept of the quadratic (marginal) curve of crop, i, in region, g, resource, j.ω g,i,j = slope of quadratic (marginal) curve of crop, i, in region, g, and resource, j.
A
Estimated cost per hectare to produce canola in California (base year: 2012).
INPUT Quantity (per Ac) UNIT Cost/Unit Total
FERTILIZER $227.90 Nitrogen (dry) 175 lb $0.74 $129.50 Phosphorous (dry) 20 lb $0.74 $14.80 Potassium (dry) 120 lb $0.54 $64.80 Sulfur (dry) 20 lb $0.94 $18.80 PESTICIDES $56.40 Assure II 2 pint $20.00 $40.00 Ammonium Sulfate 4 pint $0.35 $1.40 M90 50 ml $0.05 $2.50 Capture 1 Ac $12.50 $12.50 SEED $48.00 Canola 6 lb $8.00 $48.00 LABOR $47.17 Labor (Machine) 2.1 hrs 16.08 $33.77 Labor (non-machine) 1 hrs 13.4 $13.40 FUEL $30.87 Diesel 9 gal $3.43 $30.87 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE $12.80 Lubricants 1 Ac $2.20 $2.20 Repair 1 Ac $10.60 $10.60 CUSTOM & CONSULTANT $31.37 Rental Sprayer 1 Ac $2.16 $2.16 Custom Aerial Spray 1 Ac $8.03 $8.03 Rental Ripper Shooter 1 Ac $6.18 $6.18 Soil Test 1 Ac $15.00 $15.00 OTHERS $266.53 Overhead $ 250.00 Crop Insurance $ 10.00 Interest on Operative Capital $ 6.53 Total Cost per Acre 2012 $721.04 Total Cost per Acre 2007 $659.09 Yield per Acre 2,500 lb
Canola, Yolo County, 2007
N rate (lb N/ac)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Seed
yie
ld (l
b/ac
)
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000yield (lb/ac) = 1030 + 14.9 (lb seed/ lb N ac) (r2 = 0.97)
Sample enterprise budget and N response prediction for canola in a Sacramento Valley location. Budgets can also be used for LCA.
Cluster analyses using DPR data identifying incumbent (baseline) land use patterns, considered as cropping systems in different parts of the state (SAC: Sacramento Valley; NSJ: northern San Joaquin Valley; SSJ: southern SJV; SCA: Imperial Valley/Palo Verde Valley).
croptype 1 2 3 4alfalfa 2.72% 29.49% 25.66% 15.99%barley 1.06% 1.33% 0.39% 1.62%beans 2.24% 1.15% 3.05% 7.29%
bermudagrass 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%broccoli 1.12% 0.20% 0.27% 2.27%carrot 0.29% 0.23% 0.04% 0.47%corn 2.09% 12.67% 33.26% 14.34%
cotton 30.31% 25.45% 1.80% 9.63%
foragefodder 0.05% 0.20% 0.88% 0.64%garlic 7.19% 0.20% 0.00% 0.66%lettuce 6.49% 0.57% 0.23% 2.36%melon 2.43% 1.02% 0.35% 2.37%oat 0.32% 3.27% 17.87% 11.91%potato 0.00% 0.04% 2.29% 5.55%rice 0.33% 0.71% 0.25% 1.46%ryegrass 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.06%safflower 1.17% 0.17% 0.05% 0.32%sorghum 0.07% 0.08% 0.25% 0.27%
sudangrass 0.03% 0.40% 1.13% 0.51%sugarbeet 1.30% 2.24% 0.44% 0.53%
tomato 29.74% 11.36% 2.49% 10.28%
wheat 11.03% 9.20% 9.26% 11.47%
croptype 1 2 3
alfalfa23.34%
11.17%
37.19%
barley 0.05% 0.53% 0.06%beans 0.13% 3.68% 0.08%bermudagrass 1.51% 6.91% 9.29%broccoli 9.26% 7.13% 2.84%carrot 9.05% 7.15% 1.59%corn 5.26% 8.39% 2.27%cotton 2.21% 1.52% 7.61%foragefodder 0.44% 1.02% 1.82%garlic 0.05% 0.02% 0.10%
lettuce20.67%
15.08% 2.42%
melon 3.68% 6.03% 1.90%oat 0.24% 2.68% 0.95%potato 1.01% 6.05% 0.29%rape 0.23% 0.35% 0.63%rice 0.00% 0.02% 0.00%ryegrass 0.03% 0.41% 0.20%safflower 0.01% 0.67% 0.00%sorghum 0.05% 0.83% 0.47%sudangrass 2.39% 1.36% 1.96%
sugarbeet 6.35% 2.05%13.74%
tomato 0.35% 1.22% 0.15%
wheat13.70%
15.73%
14.45%
Example land use patterns in the northern San Joaquin Valley and the Imperial Valley by sub‐region (2003‐12 data)
Many diverse crops are grown on limited acres in each region identified via cluster analysis. When modeling incumbent cropping patterns, only the crops equaling 90% of land use were included, simplifying the model and making new crop adoption estimates more conservative. About 5 to 10 % of arable land appears to be available for new crop enterprises on a yearly basis over time in most regions.
SJVIV
As yield increases, crops become profitable at a lower price and entry price declines. The land needed to meet feedstock demand declines and locations where feedstock is produced to meet demand within the state change.
Canola yield (t/ac)
Canola yield (lb/ac)
oil fraction lb oil/ac
gal biodisel
/ac
acres needed for
60Mg/y1 2000 0.425 850 116 515294.1
1.25 2500 0.425 1062.5 146 412235.31.5 3000 0.425 1275 175 343529.41.75 3500 0.425 1487.5 204 294453.8
2 4000 0.425 1700 233 257647.1
Entry prices and adopted acres of canola (Yeo and Kaffka (2015), draft CEC report).
High yields are important for canola adoption
Regional entry prices for canola at different adoption levels (i.e. number of acres) measured in dollars per ton.
Number of Acres
Sacramento Valley
Northern San Joaquin
Valley
Southern San Joaquin
Valley
Southern California Coastal
5,000 $ 313.02 $ 350.18 $ 307.20 $ 358.92 $ 569.08 25,000 $ 336.44 $ 355.48 $ 310.74 $ 558.96 $ 569.86 50,000 $ 360.47 $ 362.11 $ 315.16 $ 593.25 $ 570.83
100,000 $ 430.21 $ 395.59 $ 324.01 $ 608.02 $ 572.78
Crop displacement in the five California regions because of introduction of 100,000 acres of Canola.
Sacramento Valley Northern San Joaquin Valley Southern San Joaquin Valley
Wheat 34,571 Cotton 83,266 Cotton 34,485 Oath 15,426 Wheat 7,327 Wheat 20,462 Corn 14,259 Lettuce 2,985 Oath 14,241 Alfalfa 10,127 Corn 2,667 Corn 13,390 Safflower 7,355 Beans 2,294 Beans 13,187
Outputs from BCAM modeling, Kaffka and Jenner, 2011 (2007 prices)
Estimated irrigation water saved by adopting canola (1000 ac ft/y): 102 132 101
Can crop based biofuels reduce Green House Gas emissions from transportation fuels?
Indirect land use change:
Concern about leakage (unanticipated consequences) from biofuel production and use:these include demand induced land conversion, loss of important habitats, and emission of CO2into the atmosphere from land conversion.
Economic models are used to estimate ILUC.
ILUC penalties are a barrier to entry for in‐state biofuel producers
• BCAM provides robust, localized estimates of crop substitution and resource use effects.
• The model used by CARB for consequential analysis cannot accurately reflect on‐the‐ground conditions in the state so cannot estimate accurate ILUC values, especially for limited acreage adoption.
• Land idling due to drought, and improved use of slack resources (especially winter production) suggest that little to no ILUC will occur for the oilseed examples discussed.
• In‐state production creates needed jobs and saves water. Both are legitimate climate related policy goals with social and sustainability ramifications.
• If so, how can these results, methods, and concerns for non‐carbon benefits be used in the LCFS regulatory process?
Supplemental slides
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007
1,000 acres
Cultivated Cropland Non-Cultivated Cropland Total Cropland
Changes in California cultivated and non‐cultivated cropland, 1982‐2007 (USDA, NRCS, 2009). Non‐cultivated cropland = tree and vine crops predominantly; Land planted to perennial crops continues to increase in CA in response to world‐wide demand, especially Asian demand.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Acr
es
Corn Grain Acres
Corn Silage Acres
All Corn Acres
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Acr
es
Wheat Acres
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Acr
es
Dry Edible Bean Acres
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Acr
es
Upland Cotton Acres
Pima Cotton Acres
Long term trends in agronomic crop acres in CA. Unaffected by bioenergy crop production. USDA data_Jenner
Inter‐annual variations of summer/winter Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived from Landsat images in San Joaquin Valley region. a) The study area is defined as the jointed 50‐mile buffer area from Hanford and UCWSREC; b) Lines indicates the median NDVI values during summer period fluctuating among years, and points indicate lower NDVI values during selected winters (winter images are not available in most years due to ground fog; c) and d) NDVI map in 2010 overlapped with cropping area derived from California Pesticide Use Report (PUR) data. Source: NASA Landsat Program, 2013, Landsat TM+. Wan‐Ru Yang
Land is underutilized in winter
Idled farmland in the San Joaquin Valley of California (2014). Photo: NY Times. Estimates for amounts of land idled in 2013‐14 exceed 500,000 acres. Other de‐intensification decisions has also been made but are more difficult to account. Market effects (adjustments) have already occurred and will occur over the next several years. Will this idled land be considered to be new land once it comes back into production if used for an energy feedstock crop?
AEZs in GTAP
AEZ’s do not appear to capture the unique characteristics of CA’s Mediterranean climate and production systems.
Increasing demand in China for imported dairy products has become a major driver in global markets, especially for milk powders and whey products. (USDA‐ERS). http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/chart‐gallery/detail.aspx?chartId=49507&ref=collection
China’s exceptional growth in meat consumption. “China…had meat demand increase more rapidly with income than other groups, but was similar…by 2009.” Tilman and Clark, 2014, Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Naturedoi:10.1038/nature13959
For ILUC, political decisions by large consumers may be more important than market factors
ILUC and in‐state feedstock production• BCAM provides robust, localized estimates of crop substitution and
resource use effects. • The model used by CARB for consequential analysis cannot
accurately reflect on‐the‐ground conditions in the state so cannot estimate accurate ILUC values, especially for limited acreage adoption.
• Land idling due to drought, and improved use of slack resources (especially winter production) suggest that little to no ILUC will occur for the oilseed examples discussed.
• In‐state production creates needed jobs and saves water. Both are legitimate climate related policy goals with social and sustainability ramifications.
• If so, how can these results, methods, and concerns for non‐carbon benefits be used in the LCFS regulatory process?