Premium
Dual Use Switchgrass: Managing Switchgrass for Biomass Production and Summer Forage
Author(s) -
Richner J. M.,
Kallenbach R. L.,
Roberts C. A.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.2134/agronj13.0415
Subject(s) - panicum virgatum , forage , agronomy , biomass (ecology) , loam , growing season , environmental science , frost (temperature) , biology , panicum , perennial plant , bioenergy , biofuel , soil water , geography , ecology , meteorology
The primary objective was to determine the feasibility of harvesting switchgrass ( Panicum virgatum L.) for biomass and/or forage in a single season. Plots were located at Mt. Vernon, on Viraton silt loam (fine‐loamy, siliceous, active, mesic Oxyaquic Fragiudalf), and Columbia, on Mexico silt loam (fine, smectitic, mesic Vertic Epiaqualf), both in Missouri. Forage/biomass yields and nutritive value of samples intended for forage use, were compared between four harvest management treatments: a single post‐frost harvest for biomass (Treatment I), a forage harvest at boot stage followed by a post‐frost biomass harvest (Treatment II), biomass harvest at postanthesis with late summer regrowth harvested as forage (Treatment III) and biomass harvest at preanthesis with late summer regrowth harvested as forage (Treatment IV). A complementary study was conducted to determine the effects of switchgrass maturity stage on efficiency of conversion to glucose through enzymatic hydrolysis. Both studies were conducted in 2010 and 2011. The single, post‐frost harvest (Treatment I) yielded as much as or more biomass than any other treatment. At Mt. Vernon in both years, yields intended for forage use were greatest for Treatment II. At Columbia, forage yields were greatest for Treatment IV in 2010 while there was no difference between treatments in 2011. When forage harvests were compared, summer regrowth was generally more lignified than growth harvested at boot stage. Two‐harvest systems can yield as much as single harvest systems; producers should weigh the economic value of forage vs. biomass before deciding which strategy fits best.