Biomass loss and composition change of energycane and biomass sorghum during aerobic and anaerobic storage
Yubin Yang, Tanumoy Bera, Lloyd T. Wilson, Fugen Dou, John L. Jifon, William L. Rooney, Hamid Araji, Jesse I. Morrison, Brian S. Baldwin, Joseph E. Knoll, Alan L. Wright, Dennis C. Odero, Hardev S. Sandhu, Anna L. Hale, Himaya P. Mula-Michel, Jing Wang
TL;DR
This study compares how energycane and biomass sorghum lose biomass and change in composition during storage under different conditions in the southeastern US.
Contribution
The study provides new insights into biomass storage characteristics for energycane and biomass sorghum under aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Findings
Crop type had less than 3% impact on moisture content and biomass loss, indicating similar storage behavior between energycane and biomass sorghum.
Aerobic storage led to 49.9% dry matter loss after 9 months, while anaerobic storage resulted in 40.3% loss.
Biomass composition changes for cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and ash were all less than 3% during 9 months of storage.
Abstract
Energycane and biomass sorghum are two of the most promising cellulosic energy crops in the southeastern US. This study aims to determine the biomass loss and composition change of energycane and biomass sorghum in storage under different environments. Aerobic and anaerobic storage trials were conducted in seven locations across the southeastern US for energycane and six locations for biomass sorghum for 3, 6 and 9 months. Results revealed that crop type accounted for less than 3% of the variability in moisture content and biomass loss, suggesting similar storage characteristics between energycane and biomass sorghum. Average moisture content decreased from 60.7 to 50.4% after 9 months in covered aerobic storage piles but increased from 62.9 to 67.2% for anaerobic storage in anaerobic silage bags. Dry matter loss averaged 49.9% after 9 months of aerobic storage and 40.3% for anaerobic…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsBioenergy crop production and management · Forest Biomass Utilization and Management · Biofuel production and bioconversion