Original Articles Open access

Transportation of maize silage to biogas plants

Authors

Published
18 June 2020
Section
Original Articles
DOI
10.4081/jae.2020.974
Pages
80-90

Abstract

Maize silage is one of the most used feedstock for the anaerobic digestion plants in Italy. As biomass, it is necessary to choose maize hybrids and sowing times to reach the maturity stage at the planned harvest period. In addition, the contractor has to set up transport chains considering distances and other factors affecting the forward speed in function of the supplied biogas plants. This work examined different road conditions (length, weather and congestion) that might influence the maize silage transportation under both the energy and economic points of view. Tests were carried out with an agricultural tractor equipped with two trailers (a turntable steering and a dumper) along six itineraries (6.2, 15.3, 22.1, 32.5, 44.4, and 58.2 km) in two different traffic conditions: high congestion (early morning) and low congestion (evening). Tests were also performed in two seasons with different weather conditions: late Summer and early Autumn. The average forward speed was 27.40 km h–1 with a 15% difference between the best (evening and late Summer) and the worst (early morning and early Autumn) condition, with a productivity that varied between 9.50 and 81.98 m3h–1 respectively. The performed tests confirmed that the energetic evaluation is always positive also in the longest itinerary (58.2 km), but the actual market value of maize silage (52.00 € t–1) limits the convenience of the transportation distance up to 18 km. In conclusion, the study showed that the maize silage transportation using agricultural tractors not only depends on the travelled distance, but also on the road congestion and the weather conditions.

Keywords

References

  1. AASHTO. 2001. A policy on geometric design of highways and streets. http://www.transportation.org/Pages/Default.aspx. Last visit: February, 12, 2016.
  2. AkÒ«elik R. Traffic Signals: Capacity and Timing Analysis Research Report 123 (1981). Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, Australia.
  3. Akcelik R. Fuel Efficiency and Other Objectives in Traffic System Management. Traffic Engineering & Control 1981;22:54-65.
  4. Amiama C, Pereira JM, Castro A, Bueno J. Modelling corn silage harvest logistics for a cost optimization approach. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2015;118:56-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.08.024
  5. ASAE American Society of Agricultural Engineers. ASAE Standards: Agricultural Machinery Management 1999. EP466.2.
  6. Bacenetti J, Sala C, Fusi A, Fiala M. Agricultural anaerobic digestion plants: What LCA studies pointed out and what can be done to make them more environmentally sustainable? Applied energy 2016;79:669-686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.07.029
  7. Bacenetti J, Lovarelli D, Ingrao C, Tricase C, Negri M, Fiala M. Assessment of the influence of energy density and feedstock transport distance on the environmental performance of methane from maize silages. Bioresource Technology 2015;193:256-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.06.067
  8. Bacenetti J, Negri M, Lavarelli D, Ruiz Garcia L, Fiala M. Economic performences of anaerobi digestion plants: effect of maize silage energy dencity at increasing transport distances. Biomass Bioenerg 2015;80:73-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2015.04.034
  9. Bailey A, Basford W, Penlington N, Park J, Keatinge J, Rehman T, Tranter R, Yates C. A comparison of energy use in conventional and integrated arable farming in the UK, Agriculture Ecosystems Environment 2003;97:241-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00115-4
  10. Bergstrand KG. Planning and analysis of forestry operation studies. Skogsarbeten Bull 1991;17:63.
  11. Berruto R, Busato P. System approach to biomass harvest operations: Simulation modeling and linear programming for logistic design. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2008;9:5472-89.
  12. Berruto R. Busato P, Dionysis B. The bioenergy farm project: Web applications for the assessment of biomass production and logistics American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting 2012.
  13. Bijrjesson P, Gustavsson L. Regional production and utilization of biomass in Sweden. Energy 1996;21(9):747-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(96)00029-1
  14. Bijrjesson P. Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation. Biomass Bioenerg 1996;11(4):305-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0961-9534(96)00024-4
  15. Björheden R, Apel K, Shiba M, Thompson MA. IUFRO Forest work study nomenclature. Swedish University of Agricultural Science Dept. of Operational Efficiency. Garpenberg; 1995. 16p.
  16. Børnes V, Aakre A. Description, Validation and Use of a Model to Estimate Speed Profile of Heavy Vehicles in Grades. 6th International Symposium on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service Stockholm, Sweden June 28 – July 1, 2011.
  17. Busato P, Berruto R. Minimising manpower in rice harvesting and transportation operations. Biosystems Engineering 2016;151:435-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.029
  18. Dinuccio E, Balsari P, Gioelli F, Menardo S. Evaluation of the biogas productivity potential of some Italian agro-industrial biomasses. Bioresource Technology 2010;101(10):3780-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.12.113
  19. Djomo SN, Kasmioui OE, Ceulemans R. Energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;3:181-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01073.x
  20. Firrisa MT, Duren IV, Voinov A. Energy efficiency for rapeseed biodiesel production in different farming systems. Energy Effic.2014;7:79-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-013-9201-2
  21. Fluck RC. Energy sequestered in repairs and maintenance of agricultural machinery. Trans ASAE May-June 1985;28(3):1270-1279.
  22. Gebrezgabher SA, Meuwissen MPM, Prins BAM, Oude Lansink AGJM. Econimic analysis of anaerobic digfestion – a case of Green power biogas plant in the Nertherlands. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of life Sciences 2010;57:109-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2009.07.006
  23. Golecha R, Gan J. Biomass transport cost from field to conversion facility when biomass yield density and road network vary with transport radius. Applied Energy 2016;164:321-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.070
  24. Harmon J, Luck B. Data recording methods and time-motion analysis of the forage harvest process 2016 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting, ASABE 2016.
  25. Hartsough B. Economics of harvesting to maintain high structural diversity and resulting damage to residual trees. West. J. Appl. For. 2003;18:133-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/wjaf/18.2.133
  26. Hartrli SA, Ozkan B, Fert C. An econometric analysis of energy input-output in Turkish agriculture. Renewable & sustainable Energy Reviews 2005;9:608-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2004.07.001
  27. Hijazi O, Munro S, Zerhusen B, Effenberger M. Review of life cycle assessment for biogas production in Europe. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:1291-3000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.013
  28. Höhn J, Lehtonen E, Rasi S, Rintala J. A Geographical Information System (GIS) based methodology for determination of potential biomasses and sites for biogas plants in southern Finland. Appl Energy 2014;113:1–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.005
  29. Kitani O. Energy and biomass engineering. In: CIGR handbook of agricultural Engineering, Vol V. ASAE publication, 1999. p 330.
  30. Kusek G, Ozturk HH, Akdemir S. An assessment of energy use of different cultivation methods for sustainable rapeseed production. Journal of Cleaner Production 2016;112;:2772-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.015
  31. Jäppinen E, Korpinen OJ, Ranta T. The Effects of Local Biomass Availability and Possibilities for Truck and Train Transportation on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a Small-Diameter Energy Wood Supply Chain. Bioenerg. Res. 2013;6:166-77.
  32. Jenkins TL, Sutherland JW. A cost model for forest-based biofuel production and its application to optimal facility size determination. For Policy Econ 2014;38:32-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.08.004
  33. Lijó L. González-García S, Bacenetti J, Negri M, Fiala M, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Environmental assessment of farm-scaled anaerobic co-digestion for bioenergy production. Waste Manage. 2015;72:23-34.
  34. Magagnotti N, Spinelli R. COST Action FP0902 – Good practice guideline for biomass production studies, CNR IVALSA. Florence, Italy; 2012. 41p. ISBN 978-88-901660-4-4. www.forestenergy.org
  35. Manzone M, Spinelli R. Efficiency of small-scale firewood processing operations in Southern Europe. Fuel Processing Technology 2014;122:58-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2014.01.025
  36. Manzone M, Balsari P. The energy consumption and economic costs of different vehicles used in transporting woodchips, Fuel 2015;139:511-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.09.003
  37. Manzone M. Loader performance during woodchip loading. Biomass Bioenerg 2017;98:80-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.01.016
  38. Manzone M, Calvo A. Woodchip transportation: Climatic and congestion influence on productivity, energy and CO2 emission of agricultural and industrial convoys. Renewable Energy 2017;108:250-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.02.074
  39. Manzone M. Energy and CO2 emissions associated with mechanical planters used in biomass plantations. Biomass Bioenerg 2016;87:156-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.01.011
  40. Manzone M. Energy consumption and CO2 analysis of different types of chippers used in wood biomass plantations. Applied energy 2015;156:686-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.049
  41. Manzone M. CO2 emissions and energy consumption of loaders in woodchip loading operation. Biomass and Bioenergy 2018;109:10-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.12.012
  42. Murphy F, Devlin G, McDonnell K. Forest biomass supply chains in Ireland: A life cycle assessment of GHG emissions and primary energy balances. Applied Energy 2014;116:1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.11.041
  43. Maung TA, Gustafson CR, Saxowsky DM, Nowatzki J, Miljkovic T, Ripplinger D. The logistics of supplying single vs. multi-crop cellulosic feedstocks to a biorefinery in southeast North Dakota. Appl Energy 2013;109:229-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.04.003
  44. Menardo S, Balsari P, Tabacco E, Borreani G. Effect of Conservation Time and the Addition of Lactic Acid Bacteria on the Biogas and Methane Production of Corn Stalk Silage. Bioenergy Research 2015;8(4):1810-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-015-9637-7
  45. Mikkola HJ, Ahokas J. Indirect energy input of agricultural machinery in bioenergy production. Renewable Energy 2010;35:23-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.05.010
  46. Murata YS, Kutluhana S, Cakicia Z. Investigation of Cyclic Vehicle Queue and Delay Relationship for Isolated Signalized Intersections 2011. EWGT2013 – 16th Meeting of the EURO Working Group on Transportation
  47. Murata YS. A New Approach for Modeling Vehicle Delay at Isolated Signalized Intersections. ITE Journal on the web / November 2007.
  48. Negri M, Bacenetti J, Brambilla M, Manfredini A, Cantore C, Bocchi S. Biomethane production from different crop systems of cereals in Northern Italy. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;63:321-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.01.041
  49. Orfanou A, Busato P, Bochtis D, Edwards G, Pavlou D, Sørensen CG, Berruto R. Scheduling for machinery fleets in biomass multiple-field operations. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2013;94:12-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.03.002
  50. Overend RP. The average haul distance and transportation work factors for biomass delivered to a central plant. Biomass Bioenerg 1982;2:75–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0144-4565(82)90008-7
  51. Patterson T, Estevens S, Dinsdale R, Guwy A. Life cycle assessment of biogas infrastructure options on a regional scale. Bioresour. Technol. 2011;102(15): 313-23.
  52. Pellizzi G. Use of energy and labour in Italian agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1992;52:111-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(92)80054-V
  53. Pishgar-Komleh SH, Ghahderijani M, Sefeedpari P. Energy consumption and CO2 emissions analysis of potato production based on different farm size levels in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production 2012;33:183-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.008
  54. Pordesimo LO, Hames BR, Sokhansanjc S, Edens WC. Variation in corn stover composition and energy content with crop maturity. Biomass Bioenerg 2005;28:366-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2004.09.003
  55. Ragab M, Mousa M. Analysis and Modeling of Measured Delays at Isolated Signalized Intersections. J Transp Eng 2002;128(4):347-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2002)128:4(347)
  56. Rawlings C, Rummer B, Seeley C, Thomas C, Morrison D, Han H, Cheff l, Atkins D, Graham D, Windell K. A study of how to decrease the costs of collecting, processing, and transporting slash (2004). Montana Community Development Corporation, Missoula, MT. 21 p.Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Picchi G, Lombardini C, Nati C. Upsized harvesting technology for coping with new trends in short-rotation coppice. Appl Eng Agric 2011;27:1-7.
  57. Sopegno A, Calvo A, Berruto R, Busato P, Bochtis D. A web mobile application for agricultural machinery cost analysis. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2016;130:158-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.08.017
  58. Sosa A, Acuna M, McDonnell K, Devlin G. Controlling moisture content and truck configurations to model and optimise biomass supply chain logistics in Ireland Applied Energy 2015;137(1):338-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.10.018
  59. Sultana A, Kumar A. Development of tortuosity factor for assessment of lignocellulosic biomass delivery cost to a biorefinery. Appl Energy 2014;119:288-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.036
  60. Sturmer B. Feedstock change at biogas plants – Impact on production costs. Biomass Bioenerg 2017;98:228-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.01.032
  61. Yilmaz I, Akcaoz H, Ozkan B. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy 2005;30:145-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2004.06.001
  62. UNI EN 14774-2. Solid biofuels, determination of moisture content – oven dry method, Part 2: total moisture - simplified method; 2010.
  63. UNI EN 14918. Solid biofuels, determination of calorific value; 2010.
  64. Walla C, Schneeberger. The optimal size for biogas plants. Biomass Bioenerg 2008;32:551-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.11.009
  65. http://www.ispettorato.gov.it. Visited at 12/01/2019.
  66. Velazquez-Marti B, Fernandez-Gonzalez E. Mathematical algorithms to locate factories to transform biomass in bioenergy focused on logistic network construction. Renewable Energy 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.02.011

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.