Please read this case study and write a paragraph for the following section showing the idea that is mention in this section

Market Feasibility (200 to 250 words maximum)

1- What is the factory produce?
2- – What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a market problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using market feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the market feasibility solution?
Technical Feasibility: (200 to 250 words maximum)
1- What is the factory produce?
2- – What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a technical problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using technical feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the technical feasibility solution?
Financial Feasibility: (200 to 250 words maximum)
1- What is the factory produce?
2- – What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a financial problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using financial feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the technical feasibility solution?
Environmental Feasibility: (200 to 250 words maximum)
1- What is the factory produce?
2- What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a environmental problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using environmental feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the environmental feasibility solution?
Note: Please site the sentences and write the references as APA style.
You can do search by your own but it should related to the case study of the PDF file, and do not forget to put the references.

Appendix to:
Evaluation of the choice of biomass type, its quality (suitability), procurement and
cultivation, 24 month report to CRAFT Project No: CRAF-1999-70986:
Biochemicals and Energy from sustainable Utilization of herbaceous
Biomass (BESUB)
Feasibility study of green biomass procurement.
Hólmgeir Björnsson, Áslaug Helgadóttir, Jón Guðmundsson, Þóroddur
Sveinsson and Jónatan Hermannsson
The Agricultural Research Institute, Keldnaholti, Reykjavík, Iceland
December 2004
RALA 029/JA-004
2
Table of Contents
Executive summary 3
1. Introduction 3
1.1. Land resources 3
1.2. Crops for biomass production 4
1.3. Quality of biomass 4
2. The Nootka lupine 5
2.1. Availability of Nootka lupine in southern Iceland 5
2.2. Potential lupine fields in southern Iceland 6
2.3. Sustainability of production 9
2.4. Nutrient requirements 10
2.5. Techniques for cultivation and harvesting 12
2.6. Quality factors 12
2.7. Scenarios for lupine biomass 14
3. Perennial grasses 14
3.1. Reed canary grass 14
3.2. Timothy 15
3.3. Other grass species 16
3.4. Set aside hayfields 16
3.5. Left-over hay bales 17
4. Annual crops 17
4.1. Barley grain and straw 17
4.2. Other annual crops 18
5. Cost analyses 18
5.1. Lupine 18
5.2. Grass 20
5.3. Barley 20
5.4. Summary of cost analyses 21
6. Conclusions 21
7. References 22
3
Executive summary
This report studies the feasibility of using a variety of crops for large scale biomass production
in Iceland. Extensive areas are available for such activities as only 8% of the 15.500 km2
below 200 m suitable for cultivation is currently in agricultural production.
The Nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis) is of primary interest as it can be cultivated on the
extensive sandy and gravely plains in southern Iceland. It is able to carry out symbiotic
fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, which eliminates the need for artificial nitrogen fertiliser. The
report identifies areas suitable for lupine production in southern Iceland but a larger part of
this is at some distance from a probable factory site where there is ample geothermal energy.
The Nootka lupine has, so far, not been used for continuous herbage production and
experimental results on sustainable biomass production are limited. Harvestable yields can
not be expected until after four years from establishment. The production potential varies
depending on soil type, harvest date and repeated harvests over years. Small scale
production could be restricted to favourable areas yielding about 5 t/ha DM over a period of
four years or even more. On the extensive sandy areas, on the other hand, yields around 3
t/ha could be expected. Application of phosphorus and sulphur will improve yield and
fertilisation with other nutrients would be required in the long run.
The cost of cultivation, cutting and wilting of the lupine crop was estimated for four scenarios
of yield and longevity of the lupine in the field. The estimates range from 2.78 to 4.24 IKR/kg
DM. The range of these estimates indicates the need to obtain more reliable results on lupine
cultivation and harvest.
Barley cultivation is steadily increasing and experiments have shown that a barley field can
give a total biomass in the range of 8-10 t/ha at moderate fertiliser rates, with a Harvest Index
of 0.5. In the context of the present project both grain and straw biomass for fermentation is
an option. The average cost for 8 t/ha of biomass would then be 7.70 IKR/kg DM. These
figures include the cost of harvesting the seed and baling the straw.
Perennial grasses, such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and timothy (Phleum
pratense), can give high sustainable DM yields if harvested in late summer and are thus an
economic source of biomass. However, research specially designed for the production of
biomass is needed. Set aside hayfields and left over hay bales could be a valuable addition to
any other source of biomass.
Biomass can be used as a substrate for a variety of industrial processes that make use of
different properties of the biomass. This will direct the choice of crop species and the
feasibility of the biomass procurement. The quality factors that affect the value of green or
wilted biomass are DM content at harvest and components making up the dry matter; ash,
protein, fat, cell wall components and a remainder that is a measure of water soluble nitrogen
free cell contents. Grasses contain more cell wall material for the production of fuels and
industrial raw materials than the lupine, which, on the other hand can be a source of valuable
alkaloids such as sparteins.
1. Introduction
1.1. Land resources
Iceland is located just below the Arctic Circle but the Gulf Stream secures mild
maritime climate. The conditions for biomass production are thus characterised by a
short and cool growing season and long and unstable winters. Agricultural land
generally is restricted to areas below 200 m above sea level. Assuming a growing
season of 130 days, from 7 May to 15 September, land suitable for cultivation can be
4
classified into three groups depending on the mean temperature during the growing
season. This depends, among other things, on the height above sea level, distance
from the sea and soil type. Zone 1 (mean temperature 10°C) covers land below 100
m in the south and west part of the country, and inland in the northeast and eastern
part. Zone 2 (mean temperature 9°C) covers land between 100 and 200 m in the
regions mentioned above and land below 100 m in other parts of the country, apart
from areas closest to the sea along the north and east coast of the country. Zone 3
(mean temperature 8°C) is the remaining area classified as land suitable for
cultivation (Hermannsson 2001).
This classification gives a good indication of where different crops can be grown. For
example, cultivation of barley for maturity is limited to Zone 1 where as grass for hay
production can be cultivated in all regions. Mapping of vegetation cover with the aid
of satelite image classification can be used for further planning of crop production
(Metúsalemsson & Grétarsson 2003, http://www.nytjaland.is).
1.2. Crops for biomass production
The Nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis, alaskalúpína) has been used successfully
for land reclamation in Iceland for three to four decades. It has in many cases grown
luxuriously on areas that previously had only very thin plant cover. Extensive areas of
this kind still exist so that there is a potential for great increase of lupine cultivation.
The lupine belongs to the leguminous family and is able to carry out symbiotic
fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. This is an important economic feature since it
eliminates the need of nitrogen fertilisation whereas the need for fertilisation with
other nutrients is determined more by soil properties than the crop. The lupine is the
prime choice for this project. There is, however, no experience of its use as a crop.
Considerable effort was therefore put into studying its potential for this purpose and
the results are reported in Section 2.
The potential of the Nootka lupine for sustainable biomass production has been
studied in connection with the Icelandic Biomass Project (Björnsson & Dalmannsdóttir,
2004). New results are presented in Sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6. The lupine
samples obtained in these experiments have been analysed for alkaloid content in
another phase of this project (see Work Package 2).
Other crops considered for biomass production are grasses and annual crops, barley
in particular. Section 3 is devoted to grassed and Section 4 to annual crops. Cost
evaluations are reported in Section 5. Large scale production will lead to changes in
technology and cost of production, mostly towards lower cost. It was not attempted to
predict these changes.
1.3. Quality of biomass
The composition of biomass differs between species and varies depending on
growing conditions and harvest dates. Biomass can be used as a substrate for a
variety of industrial processes that make use of different properties of the biomass.
This will direct the choice of crop species and the feasibility of the biomass
procurement.
In the early stages of growth plants are rich in protein and other cell contents. They
are rich in minerals and are well suited as animal feed. They may also be rich in
special compounds such as alkaloids. As the plants grow older biomass is
accumulated as cell wall material, mostly classified as crude fibre, or translocated to
special storage organs, mostly as carbohydrates that are easily available for human
5
digestion and fermentation microbes. Old cell walls are usually lignified. The lignin is
non-available for most organisms except some fungi and reduces the availability of
other cell wall contents. At the termination of growth in late summer or autumn a
substantial relocation of materials takes place. About 50-70% of the plant protein is
the rubisco protein associated with the plant chlorophyll. The carbon dioxide
assimilating cell tissues with the rubisco protein are partly or totally dissolved, the
plant looses the green colour and senesces and the material is translocated to
storage organs in the case of annual plants and the root system in the case of
perennial plants. Minerals are also relocated to roots so that ash content is reduced.
In storage organs such as grain, fruits and potatoes, starch, sugars or plant oils are
compounds that are of value for industrial processing. The quality factors affecting
the value of green or wilted biomass (lignocellulosic) are dry matter content at
harvest and the content in dry matter (DM) of ash, protein, fat, cell wall components
(hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin) and a remainder that is a measure of water
soluble nitrogen free cell contents. These include sugars and water soluble polymeric
substances such as pectin and a variety of other substances. The cell wall
components are determined analytically in a system developed by Van Soest (1967)
as neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and lignin. The other
fractions were calculated as hemicellulose = NDF – ADF and cellulose = ADF –
lignin. The cell wall components have different potential as substrate for industrial
processes (Kamm and Kamm 2004). As a rule grasses are richer in cell wall material
than leguminous plants such as lupine. Some crops contain substances of special
value such as spartein in the Nootka lupine. Dry matter content is a quality factor
since DM<85% causes in general extra cost for harvest, transport and/or storage.
2. The Nootka lupine
2.1. Availability of Nootka lupine in southern Iceland
The Soil Conservation Service in Iceland has, alone or in cooperation with others,
established 9500 ha of lupine fields over the last twelve years (1991-2002), of which
about 5900 ha are in southern Iceland (Soil Conservation Service 2003). To this can
be added older lupine fields and areas planted by others (size unknown). If these
fields were to be utilised for biomass procurement many of them would require some
pre-treatment such as clearing of large stones. As most of these fields are on sandy
soil they would be expected to last for a number of years if they will be harvested
after 1 September.
The cost of cultivation has in most cases only been the production and sowing of
lupine seed. No commercial use has so far been made of the biomass. The standing
biomass increases with age in young lupine fields. In four well developed fields in
southern Iceland (> 20 years old) the biomass was in the range 3-10 t DM/ha
(Magnússon et al. 2001). Lupine standing biomass was measured in 1997 in a fertile
field at Korpa Experimental Station
and at three sites in southern Iceland
where lupine could potentially be
grown on large areas of sandy soils
(Table 1).
The harvest figures in Table 1 all
represent fields where biomass has
been allowed to accumulate over a
Table 1. Lupine standing biomass DM t/ha in
1997 (Guðmundsson, unpublished report)

15-20 Oct. 20-21 Nov.
Korpa 7.5 7.4
Geitasandur 1.7 1.6
Markarfljótsaurar 3.8 1.8
Skógasandur 2.4 1.3
6
number of years without the intervention of harvest. The three sandy areas measured
are most representative of those considered for biomass production. Biomass is less
in October-November than in late summer or early autumn.
2.2. Potential lupine fields in southern Iceland
A rough estimate has shown that lupine fields could potentially be established on
nearly 100 000 ha in southern Iceland, assuming that lupine can be cultivated on all
glacial waste sands, gravel soil and the extensive sandy areas along the coast
(Guðmundsson, unpublished report). However, only limited areas can be cultivated
each year and it takes at least four years before a lupine field can be harvested. The
planning of large scale planting of lupine is a complicated issue and involves a
number of factors such as agreements with land owners and environmental
assessment. It is therefore not attempted at this stage.
Another approach to estimate the potential areas for biomass production is to use the
currently ongoing mapping of vegetation cover with the aid of satelite image
classification (Metúsalemsson & Grétarsson 2003, http://www.nytjaland.is). The
vegetation classes are indicative of potential land use. Attention is limited to the
western part of southern Iceland where the greatest lowland area is concentrated.
Within this area there is access to plenty of geothermal energy. The area below 100
m, i.e. Zone 1, is of greatest interest since only minor areas 100-200 m above sea
level are suited for cultivation. An outline of the areas is marked on the erosion map
of Iceland on Fig. 1, and a slightly simplified vegetation map is shown on Fig. 2. The
100 m isoline is shown on both maps. The size of areas of the simplified
classification is given in Table 2. The results are sudivided into 4 areas, Árnessýsla
low areas (1 and 2), Árnessýsla upper areas (3), Rangárvallasýsla between Þjórsá
and Ytri-Rangá (4) and Rangárvallasýsla between Ytri-Rangá and Markarfljót (5).

Table 2. Land areas in central South Iceland, km2
, with references to numbered areas on Fig.
1 and 2.
In
Icelandic
on Fig. 2
Ölfus, Flói
and Skeið
(1, 2)
Uppsveitir
Árnessýslu
(3)
Rangárþ.
vestra
(4)
Rangárþ.
eystra að
Markarflj. (5)
Total
Cultivated Ræktað 66 43 54 50 213
Grassland Graslendi 65 40 66 67 238
Rich heathland Ríkt
mólendi
103 99 80 51 333
Poor heathland Rýrt
mólendi
173 159 162 134 628
Brush and wood Kjarr 31 41 18 38 118
Mosses 1 34 15 18 10 77
Poorly drained
and bog
Votlendi 92 159 185 94 530
Partly vegetated
(<50%)
Lítt gróið 116 28 139 93 376
Total 0-100 m
(Zone 1)
737 585 744 537 2603

100-200 m
(Zone 2)
77 595 352 47 1071

1
Included with partly vegetated on the map
Fig. 1. Location of the areas tabulated in Table 2. The 100 m line is yellow.
Fig. 2. Mapping of vegetation classes and numbering of areas for results shown in Table 2. For English version of class names
see Table 2. Blue is water and white is snow or clouds. The 100 m line, the upper limit of vegetation area measurements, is blue.
The sandy gravely areas that are the first choice for the Nootka lupine fall within the
classes Partly vegetated, Poor heathland and Mosses, often in extensive continuous
areas. The total area of these classes is 1081 km2
and the greater part of this land
would not be suited for this kind of cultivation. Of the 1000 km2
in southern Iceland
previously evaluated as potential lupine areas only about 10% fall within the areas
tabulated. The greater part of the typical lupine areas is found further east along the
south coast as can be inferred on Fig. 1, although at a greater distance from a
probable factory site.
Very limited continuous areas suitable for biomass production such as lupine fields
are found between 100 and 200 m. The cultivated and grassland areas are only 38
and 26 km2
respectively within this zone.
2.3. Sustainability of production
Previous experiments have shown that the lupine plants badly tolerate harvesting at
the time of flowering from May/June to mid August (Magnússon et al. 1995,
Sigurðsson et al. 1995). Later studies have confirmed that survival of the lupine is
poor if it is harvested before mid or late August. This is of particular relevance where
the aim is to harvest valuable quality components such as sparteine. The lupine must
not be harvested late, otherwise the sought after qualities may be lost. If harvested
too early harvest of lupine the following year can not be expected. On fertile land
other plants will take over and may give some yield in the years to follow. On infertile
land a new cover of lupine may develop in a few years. This has though not been
confirmed in experiments.
Sustainablility of lupine production was studied in a series of experiments 1998-2004.
In order to obtain rapid and even establishment pot-grown lupine plants were planted
at 33 cm spacing in a fertile field at Korpa Experimental Station in spring 1998. The
development of the lupine biomass was probably at least two years earlier than on a
field established from lupine seed. In 1999 maximum biomass, 3.5 t DM/ha, was
obtained on 1 September and a year later maximum biomass of previously intact
lupines had reached 5.8 t DM/ha on 8 August. The standing biomass in early October
had reduced to 1.5 and 3.3 t DM/ha in 1999 and 2000 respectively. In both years this
was about 60% of the biomass on the plots on 15 August (Björnsson &
Dalmannsdóttir 2004).
On the lupine field planted in 1998 a harvest experiment with three replicates was
started in 2000 and harvested annually until 2004 when all plots were cut on the
same date (Table 3). The experiment was designed with different harvest dates and
combinations of harvest dates. The first two harvest dates were too early so that
practically no lupine remained the following year. The field is fertile and other
vegetation soon established in the plots. Its yield was measured in 2003 and 2004 or
in 2004 only. When first cut the yield was higher than on lupine plots that had been
cut annually. The following year the yield had declined however and this shows that
fertilizer is needed when nitrogen fixing plants such as the lupine are missing from
the sward. On plots cut late in 2003 the lupine recovered to some degree and made
up nearly half of the yield in 2004.
10
Table 3. DM yield of lupine harvested annually at different dates 2000-2003, DM yield and
herbage composition of the final harvest on 23 August 2004. Plots where lupine retreated
after early date of harvest 2000 were also harvest 2003-2004.
Harvest dates Lupine yield, DM t/ha Herbage composition 2004 %
2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Lupine Grasses Weeds
17.7 4.2
2.8. 6.0
4.9. 5.9. 3.9. 2.9. 5.5 5.3 4.6 4.2 4.0 79 20 1
4.10. 5.10. 15.10. 15.10. 3.5 4.4 3.1 4.8 4.4 82 16 2
4.10. 16.8. 15.10. 21.8. 3.5 7.2 2.7 4.0 4.6 54 45 1
Not
cut
16.8. 16.8. 21.8. 7.2 4.7 4.7 4.2 40 54 6

21.8. 5.2 3.1 8 79 13
2.9. 5.9 3.6 38 57 5
Plots where lupine
retreated after 2000,
harv. again 2004 15.10. 4.3 5.2 45 52 3
Cut 2004 only 5.6 19 74 6

SED 0.34 0.49 0.50 0.81 0.94 15 15 5
It seems that cutting lupine annually in early September gives the best result. Lupine
still made up the largest part of the herbage although the yield declined at the rate of
0.4 t DM/ha per year. The four different harvest schemes for lupine resulted in similar
yield (not significantly different) when harvested on the same date in 2004 although
the lupine made up only about one half of the herbage on plots that were harvested
in mid August two or three times.
Plots harvested on 4-15 October 2000-2003 showed yield decline from early
September except in 2003. Throughout summer the DM content in fresh lupine was
25% and often <20%. Plots with <70% lupine had >25% DM at harvest in 2004 on
the other hand because other plants have higher DM content than lupine late in the
season.
The main advantage of delaying the harvest from August to October is to increase
dry matter in the fresh biomass in order to reduce the requirement for field drying
before baling. DM in October was 55% and 44% in 2000 and 2002 respectively but
only about 30% in 2001 and 2003. Lupine litter quickly disintegrates and under wet
and warm conditions the loss in DM yield may be appreciable if harvest is delayed for
several weeks in return for only limited gain in DM content. There is no experience of
field drying of the lupine. Appreciable losses can be expected, especially mechanical
loss of leaves, and in wet weather easily degradable substances will be lost.
2.4. Nutrient requirements
The experimental results summarized in 2.3 were obtained on a fertile field at Korpa
Experimental Station without any application of fertilisers. Plant nutrients are
removed from the field with the harvest, especially if harvested before wilting, and
repeated harvest will, sooner or later, deplete the soil unless replenished with some
kind of fertiliser. It is assumed that a large scale lupine cultivation would be
concentrated on unfertile, light sandy soils (2.1, 2.2), which are likely to become
depleted of nutrients fairly quickly.
A fertiliser experiment has thus been initiated on a very poor site at Geitasandur in
southern Iceland in order to gain some insight into the fertiliser requirements of the
lupine under such conditions. Four soil samples were taken from the top 10 cm in
previously nonfertilized plots, two samples in each of two out of four experimental
11
replicates. In each replicate one sample was taken half way between lupine plants
and the other close to the plants. The mean results for all samples appear in Table 4.
Results for elements such as Ca and Mg show similarity to Icelandic andosols
whereas organic matter (C and N) content is very low compared to such soils. This is
because the topsoil, rich in organic matter, has eroded away. In the samples taken
close to the plant C and N were on average 0.35 and 0.035 respectively. Comparison
with the overall mean does not indicate accumulation of soil organic matter near the
lupine over the five experimental years.
Table 4. Measurements on soil samples. Chemical analyses were done on fine soil (<2mm).
pH was measured in water, readily soluble P and cations were extracted in AL-solution
(Egner et al. 1960), C and N were measured in samples burnt at 900°C in pure oxygen.
Gravel %, mg/100g meq/100g % of DM
> 2mm pH P Ca Mg K Na N% C% C/N
21 6.6 0.78 6.5 3.4 0.37 0.46 0.034 0.35 10.2
The experiment was established in spring 1999 by planting lupine plants and it was
first harvested in autumn 2003. The results are summarized in Fig. 3. This is, by
nature, a long term experiment but results obtained so far have already shown
significant effects of phosphorus (P) and, in particular, sulphur (S).
0
1
2
3
4
5
2003 2004
DM t/ha
P since 1999 No fert S S+P S+P 2004
Fig. 3. Lupine yield after different fertilizer
treatments. SED=0.4 is indicated on top of
bars.
At harvest on Sept. 2 2003 plants
receiving S in the spring were green and
lush while other plants were yellow and
wilting. Survival was good on the S-plots
although the yield was much less in
2004 than in 2003. S-fertilization in 2004
only did not help much (column to the
far right, grey colour). P was applied to
a treatment yearly from the planting of
the experiment. These plants showed
some advantage from the beginning but
some undervegetation developed also.
Survival of lupine plants receiving P and
no S was poor.
These results are not unexpected since sulphur is an essential element for protein
synthesis. Values of the ratio N/S <20 indicate adequate sulphur supply. Sulphur
deficiency has previously been found on light soils in all parts of Iceland (Helgadóttir
et al. 1977). Yield samples from the experiment were analysed and the results
showed increase in both N- and S-content and a slight decrease in the N/S ratio to
values <20.
The results of the experiment show the need for S-fertilisation from the beginning and
that fertilisation with phosphorus is also useful for good establishment of the lupine
and for increasing the yield. Sulphur is essential for the survival of lupine following
harvest. The experiment has only been harvested twice and no effect of the depletion
of plant nutrients has been found. The soil is however poor in potassium and the
need for potassium fertilisation would probably appear after few years of harvest.
Yield declined more rapidly following harvest than on the more fertile field in the
experiment at Korpa reported in Section 2.3, even on the plots receiving both P and
S. The biomass was still at a low level in 2003 although the plants were established
in the greenhouse before planting and had developed in the field since 1999.
Fertilisation with sulphur from the beginning might give a better stand. Early
12
fertilisation with P may encourage the development of other vegetation, especially
grasses, which competes with the lupine thus accelerating the retreat of the lupine
following harvest. A harvesting scheme with harvest every other year should be
considered.
2.5. Techniques for cultivation and harvesting
The Soil Conservation Service has ample experience with establishing lupine fields
all around the country. In later years fields have been established using slot seeders
without prior cultivation, generally with adequate results. Only rarely, fields are either
ploughed and harrowed or harrowed only prior to sowing. At sowing the seed must
be inoculated and scarified to increase germination. Sowing must be carried out as
early as possible in spring to ensure good establishment of the lupine sward. In order
to enhance establishment a cover crop is sometimes used, such as Italian ryegrass,
giving short term cover and it is often fertilised in the year of sowing. The new results
presented in the previous section suggest that on poor soils some fertilization is
needed.

So far lupine fields have only been harvested for seed production. The lupine is then
cut fairly high with a combine harvester leaving a good deal of standing biomass.
With this practice the fields can in most cases be harvested for many years.
Harvesting of biomass for industrial purposes will have to be carried out in the same
manner as for hay production and it will make use of comparable equipment. This
type of harvesting is harder on the lupine than harvesting for seed production. Firstly,
cutting height is much lower, leaving less standing biomass for plant recovery.
Secondly, cutting, turning, gathering and baling of the biomass involves heavy traffic
of machinery of the lupine field. This has not been tested but it is likely that the lupine
plant would be vulnerable to such treatment. It is therefore unrealistic to assume that
fields that are harvested in early September would be harvested for many
consecutive years. It is important to obtain experimental evidence on the persistence
of lupine to repeated harvest and the use of heavy machinery.
The best known technique for harvest and conservation of biomass is to use round
bales. The fresh biomass must be wilted in the field to a minimum of 35-40% DM.
Better results are obtained if it can be wilted to 50-60% DM. This also reduces the
cost of baling and transport since each bale will contain more dry matter and less
water is thus transported. The results presented in 2.3 indicate that delaying harvest
until October is not reliable to get lupine biomass ready for baling without field drying.
2.6. Quality factors
The Nootka lupine is potentially valuable as a lignocellulosic substrate for the
production of fuels or industrial raw material and as a source of valuable alkaloids.
The content of alkaloids is generally expected to decline with time during the summer
although this is not always the case. Alkaloids have been analysed in series of
samples from the summers 1987, 1988, 1991 (Magnússon & Sigurðsson 1995), 1990
(Þórsson & Guðmundsson 1993), 1995 (Þórsson & Hlíðberg 1997), 1999 and 2000
(Wink 2004, wp012, Final scientific report from UH). Methods of analysis and the
alkaloids determined vary between investigations. The sampling in 1999 and 2000
was very intensive. The results from 2000 show a decline in spartein content from
June to September as expected whereas in 1999 there was a maximum in August. A
further summary of the results is not attempted here.
Cell wall components, protein, ash and in some cases fat were analysed in lupine
samples from 1987, 1988 (Magnússon & Sigurðsson 1995), 1990 (Þórsson &
13
Guðmundsson 1993), 2000 and 2001. In 1988 the lupine was fractioned into leaves,
stem and infloresence and the fractions analysed separately. Stems are the most
important fraction, increasing after June 20 from 56 to 64% (Magnússon et al. 1995)
and the other fractions are more prone to mechanical losses in harvest. The results
from 1988 cited here are for stems only. Samples from 2000 and 2001 are from the
experiment reported in 2.3 and the results are original to this investigation (Table 5).
The results are averages of two samples, except fat was determined in only one
sample. NDF in samples from 1987, 1988, 2000 and 2001 is shown on Fig. 4. The
results from 1987 and 1988 are readings off the published diagrams. The results
1990 were not available for this presentation.
Table 5. Chemical analysis of lupine, % of DM.
Date of cut
2000 2001
Protein Fat Ash Cellulose

Hemicellulose

Lignin Water
soluble
Samples from 2000
17.07 17.5 3.5 7.0 22.1 17.6 5.3 26.9
2.08. 14.9 2.9 7.6 24.1 17.5 7.2 25.8
4.09. 12.0 2.5 7.2 26.2 18.7 8.0 25.5
4.10. 10.4 2.1 4.1 32.4 20.4 10.1 20.2
Samples from 2001
Not cut 16.08 13.3 3.1 7.2 22.8 16.6 8.9 28.1
4.09. 5.09 13.4 2.7 8.5 21.0 16.2 5.9 32.3
4.10. 5.10 9.9 2.5 7.4 28.9 17.3 7.42
26.6
SED 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.1

Ash content was similar to the results
from 1987-88 except for the low value in
October 2000 that indicates transport of
mineral nutrients from leaves and stems
to roots. Leaves are however richer in
minerals than shoots (Magnússon &
Sigurðsson 1995) and loss of leaves in
autumn would lead to lower ash content.
This difference is small and stems are
expected to be >60% so that the loss of
leaves is probably not sufficient to
explane the decline in ash content.
The content of cell wall material (NDF)
increases as the plant matures and it
differs between years (Fig. 4). In 1988
the results presented are for stems only
and this explains the high values that
year. In 2001 the results show decline of NDF from August to September. The
August samples are from plots that were not cut in 2000 and the yield was higher
than on plots cut in September 2000 (Table 5). This result is typical of the complexity
that may occur when dealing with biological material. The increase from September
to October is probably enrichment due to loss of easily degradable material rather
than formation of new cell wall material. Cellulose was near 49% of NDF in 2000 and
2001 and changed little with time whereas hemicellulose decreased and lignin
increased. Lignin was similar in 1987-88 as in 2000-2001, but hemicellulose was less
and cellulose higher relative to NDF.

2
The values measured were 7.5 and 14.6. The ratio of lignin to cellulose is fairly stable. It was
concluded that the value 14.6 was a factor of two off and it was therefore replaced with 7.3.
Sample date
62
60
55
93
50
31
45
40
0
NDF
July August September
1987
1988
2001
2000
Fig. 4. NDF % of dry matter. SED = 1.1 in
2000 and 2001
14
Lupine has lower content of cell wall material (NDF) than grass or barley as reported
in later sections and, consequently, it has greater content of water soluble materials.
A further consequence is that the water content remains high (<25% DM) towards
the end of the growing season while e.g. grasses develop much higher DM content
as the cell walls become more dominant in the biomass. The high content of soluble
materials is probably also the reason why the lupine litter reduces so quickly.
2.7. Scenarios for lupine biomass
The current knowledge on the production potential of the Nootka lupine was
summarised in previous sections. The results indicate high variability and only limited
information is available on the effect of repeated harvests. Small scale production
could be restricted to favourable areas yielding about 5 t/ha of DM over a period of
four years or even more. On the extensive sandy areas that have been proposed as
lupine fields in the future, however, the measurements done so far indicate yields
below 3 t/ha DM. Modest use of fertilisers will most likely improve the yield potential
so that 3 t/ha DM, average over fields and four years of harvest, is considered the
most realistic figure for use in cost evaluations. Higher yield, 4 t/ha DM, is though
also considered as a scenario. This could be achieved either by choosing land for
cultivation more selectively or by improving cultivation. The latter option would,
though, involve some extra costs.
As we lack both practical and experimental evidence on the response of the lupine to
repeated harvests over time we consider here two scenarios, either four years or
eight years. Yield of lupine fields is expected to decline with time and this should be
taken into account when comparing the two scenarios. The decline is taken to be
25% from the first four to the last four years, i.e. to 2.25 and 3 t/ha DM for the
scenarios 3 and 4 t/ha DM respectively.
3. Perennial grasses
Perennial grass is the main crop plant in Iceland and covers 90% of the agricultural
land currently under cultivation. Grasses are thus probably the best crop for
production of biomass when no special qualities are sought.
3.1. Reed canary grass
Grass as a source of biomass has been extensively studied in Sweden and it has
been concluded that reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, strandreyr) is the
best species for this purpose (Tuveson 1977, Landström 2000). Preliminary results
indicate that the same is also the case in Iceland. In Sweden and Finland the
recommendations are to let the grass stand until late winter. Although this is at the
cost of some loss in biomass there are several advantages. In these countries there
is usually a short period in late winter when the standing grass can be harvested with
low moisture content so that there is no need for drying. The translocation of minerals
to the roots has twofold advantage; (i) there will be less ash remaining after burning
the material, this would probably also be an advantage in some other uses of the
biomass, and (ii) lower amounts of minerals and nitrogen are removed with the
herbage and the need for fertilisation is much reduced.
At Korpa Experimental Station in South-Iceland yield was measured on a ten year old
reed canary grass field in 1986 and 1987. The field had only been cut once before
and had not been fertilised but the standing biomass was burnt each year in late
15
winter or early spring. In the two harvest years the field was fertilised in spring with
the equivalent of 120 kg N/ha. The mean yield in late August over the two years was
10.8 t DM/ha. A field with Bromus inermis (fóðurfax) and similar history gave 8.7 t
DM/ha (RALA Report 124, p. 64-65). In Iceland reed canary grass has been used for
making compost in mushroom production with good results (Ragnar Kristjánsson
personal communication). The present area is about 150 ha and it is fertilised as a
hay field. It is usually harvested in October and dried on the field before baling. It will
break if it stands too long.
3.2. Timothy
Timothy (Phleum pratense, vallarfoxgras) is the most valuable fodder grass in
Iceland. The yield is commonly about 8 t DM/ha when harvested in early August.
In 1979 and 1980 timothy was sampled weekly throughout the summer at Korpa
Experimental Station. In 1979, which was a particularly cold and short summer,
maximum yield of 9.2 t DM/ha was obtained on 28 August and in 1980, an early and
warm summer, maximum yield of 10.6 t DM/ha was obtained on 12 August. These
values can be regarded as an estimate of the potential maximum yield. Immediately
following the maximum, yield started to decline at approximately the same rate as the
previous growth rate, and the loss of protein was even more rapid. The growth rate
was about 140 kg DM/ha/day over more than 50 days and this compares well with
growth rates of high yielding plants in other countries, although the growing seasons
may be longer (Björnsson 1987). Even higher potential yield can be obtained for
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne, vallarrýgresi) but its cultivation is less reliable.
Limited information is available on the sustainability of production of grasses when
cut in late season every year. Thus, as a part of the current project an old timothy
field, slightly mixed with other grass species and broad leaved weeds, was harvested
five times at unconventional harvest dates from 18 August 2003 to 24 May 2004
(Table 5). The fertilisation in spring 2003 was 120 kg N/ha. Fertilisation on 24 May
2004 was 80 kg N/ha and all plots, including plots not harvested before, were
harvested on 25 June 2004. The plots were arranged in a randomized block
experiment with 4 replicates.
Spring growth had started when
plots were harvested on 24 May
2004 and the yield was composed of
3.4 t/ha litter and 0.9 t/ha fresh
grass. On plots not cut 2003-4 one
third of the yield was litter or 2.1 t/ha
and 4.2 t/ha green grass. The results
demonstrate that wilting had begun
on 15 October although the biomass
was still wet due to wet weather
conditions and lodging of the grass.
Residual effect on yield of different harvest was measured by equal fertilization and
harvesting all plots on the same date in 2004. Yield was highest on plots that were
harvested in late fall or winter. Although not statistically significant these results
suggest that more plant nutrients were available due to recycling of nutrients when
the biomass is allowed to wilt prior to harvest as suggested in the previous section.
The harvest date in March was chosen following a period of dry weather and the
biomass was sufficiently dry to be stored without further drying. The standard error of
Table 5. Yield and DM % of timothy cut from late
summer to spring and yield the following summer.
Date of harvest DM t/ha DM t/ha
2003-4
DM %
2003-4 2003-4 2004
20.08. 25 7.3 4.3
05.09. 17 7.4 4.2
15.10. 21 5.8 4.5
22.03. 84 4.1 4.7
24.05. 47 4.3 3.0
Not harvested
2003-4
6.3
SED 1.0 0.62 0.30
16
difference (SED) for DM % is valid only for comparison of the three earliest harvest
dates.
Table 6. Cell and cell wall contents of timothy in late summer and winter 2003-2004 % of DM.
Date Protein Fat Ash Cellulose

Hemicellulose
Lignin Water
soluble
20.08. 6.6 2.2 6.9 29.1 27.2 3.5 24.5
05.09. 6.6 2.3 7.1 29.9 27.6 3.5 23.1
15.10. 6.2 2.0 6.2 34.6 29.7 4.9 16.5
22.03. 4.9 1.6 6.1 38.1 33.5 5.5 10.4
SED 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.3
Cell and cell wall contents were determined in samples from 2 replicates except for
fat (one replicate only) (Table 6). No significant changes in forage composition were
detected from 20.8. to 5.9. In autumn and winter water soluble cell materials
decreased and the cell wall material (NDF) increased from 61 to 77% of the DM.
There was also a minor decline in hemicellulose relative to NDF. Timothy contains
more cell wall material, although less lignified, than the Nootka lupine. The total
cellulose mass decreased from 2.2 t/ha in early September to 1.6 t/ha in March. For
uses when cell wall materials are of greatest value the gain by getting sufficiently dry
yield, without need for any further drying, may very well outweigh the loss in biomass.
3.3. Other grass species
Some other species like tufted hair grass (Deschampsia caespitosa,
snarrótarpuntur), Bering hair grass (D. beringensis, beringspuntur) and meadow
foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis, háliðagras) commonly give yields comparable to
timothy. Among these, tufted hair grass grows particularly well under sub optimal
conditions, such as in infertile sandy soils and where severe winter conditions prevail.
It is known, however, to accumulate much silicon and the ash content is high. Some
other common species can also be of interest and some of them may yield equally
well when cut once and twice.
3.4. Set aside hayfields
The traditional farming sector in Iceland has changed considerably in recent years.
Number of dairy cows and sheep has reduced by 22 and 43% respectively from 1980
to 2001. Number of horses has increased on the other hand by 41% in the same
period. This has meant that fodder requirements have dropped significantly. At the
same time yield from each hectare has increased as a result of changes in hay
making techniques and fodder conservation as well as increasing temperature.
Fodder is now predominantly preserved in silage bales and this has lead to both
higher yield and quality of the fodder. All these changes mean that less cultivated
land is required for the conservation of winter forage and thousands of hectares of
grass fields will be set aside in the foreseeable future. It is important to find use for
these fields for two reasons. Firstly, large investments are at stake that may get lost if
the fields are allowed to degrade. Secondly, it is important to find ways to maintain
the quality of the cultivation for future needs for fodder and food that may arise
unexpectedly in the future.
Set aside hayfields can provide cheap raw material for biomass production. Firstly,
their utilisation doesn’t involve any establishment costs. Secondly, in contrast to
fodder production species composition of the sward is of little significance as
secondary species can give high DM yields if harvested late in the season. There is,
17
therefore, no need for sward renovation. Thirdly, it is probably possible to get away
with less fertiliser than for the production of high quality fodder. Fourthly, biomass
production will provide extra income (or become an additional activity) for farmers
that are otherwise engaged in the production of meat or milk. All this means that
prices for each kg DM produced in this way should be considerably less than for hay
primarily intended as high quality fodder (see 5.2).
3.5. Left-over hay bales
In a normal year farmers produce more hay than is required for the winter feeding of
the animals. This is essential in order to meet poor hay making years or late advent
of spring. Hay is most commonly stored as silage with 50-60% dry matter content in
bales covered with several layers of plastic film. It is not practiced to store hay bales
for more than one winter so in a normal year farmers have to get rid of some old
bales. Under favourable conditions for grass growth, such as in summer 2003,
farmers do not even make hay from all the grass that grows on their fields.
For example, the surplus in southern Iceland alone from summer 2002 was
approximately 100,000 m3
or 20,000 t DM (The Farmers Association in South
Ideland, personal communication). This is unusually much and exceeds the winter
feed required of around 20%. The willingness of farmers to sell some of their
reserves to a biomass factory would depend on how much the factory would pay in
excess of the baling costs. This cost is presently around 2.50 to 4 IKR/kg DM
(Agricultural Economics Institute 2003b).
4. Annual crops
4.1. Barley grain and straw
The cultivation of barley is steadily increasing in Iceland and is approaching 3000 ha
at present, about half of which is in southern Iceland. A large increase in grain
production is forecast in the foreseeable future (Helgadóttir and Hermannsson 2003).
The benefits of this development are not only the value of the grain as such. The
cultivation of barley introduces crop rotation as a normal farming practice. This is
beneficial to other crops and would be of particular value e.g. in the potato growing
districts if the farmers could find a market for the grain produced. Experiments at
Korpa Experimental Station have shown that a barley field can give a total biomass in
the range of 8-10 t DM/ha at 60 kg N/ha. The Harvest Index (HI), i.e. grain in
proportion to the total standing biomass, was around 0.5 (RALA Report 208, pp. 50-
52). In the context of the present project both the grain and straw biomass as
fermentation material might also be an option.
Typically the dry matter in barley grain is composed of 60% starch and 20% NDF and
the remainder is mainly protein, fat and ash (Björnsson et al. 2002). The NDF is
mostly composed of hemicellulose and about one quarter (5% of DM) is cellulose.
Four samples of straw from an experiment with different harvest dates of barley
(Björnsson et al. 2002) were analysed for the present study. NDF (cell wall
components) increased from 68 to 77% when harvest was delayed for four weeks
from 30 August to 27 September and cellulose content increased from 32 to 37%.
The fat content was 1.5% of DM. The experimental field was not homogeneous and
nitrogen mineralization differed significantly within the experiment. On plots with high
N-mineralization the straw continued growing and remained green into autumn,
indicating higher protein content. The straw was also less lignified with only 5.1%
18
lignin compared to 10.5% on plots where the straw stopped growing when the grain
matured. Cutting dates did not have effect on lignin content in this small study.
The production of barley grain has to compete with subsidised imports from the EU. If
the straw can be given a market value the economy would change. Presently the
growers are striving for a high HI. Barley is mostly grown on light soils where the HI is
around 0.5 and the protein content in straw is normally 4% of DM. On soils that
release sufficient nitrogen throughout the growing season, i.e. organic soils and other
soils rich in organic matter, the HI will be lower and the maturity of the grain crop is
sometimes delayed. The straw becomes less lignified and if it remains green until
harvest the protein content may be as high as 6-7%. The total yield of biomass is
often greater than on lighter soils and, if the straw has a value, the production may
become more profitable.
4.2. Other annual crops
Other annual crops, apart from barley, are efficient in producing biomass since they
utilize the growing season better than perennial crops that prepare early for the
winter. This includes annual ryegrass, cereals like oats and ryewheat that can not be
grown for maturity, root crops like swedes and turnips, and potatoes. These might be
considered if qualities other than those found in wilting lupine, grass or barley can be
given value.
5. Cost analyses
Three models will be considered in the cost analyses:
1. Lupine harvested in early September fox maximum biomass production
2. Grass cut in early September for maximum biomass production
3. Barley grain and straw
Calculations are based on information from the Soil Conservation Service, the
Agricultural Economics Institute, the Agricultural Association and through personal
communication. All estimates are based on 2003 prices.
5.1. Lupine
A number of assumptions are made in the following simple cost estimates. It is clear
that were the assumptions changed the cost estimates would change accordingly. It
would be desirable to set up a model involving the different cost parameters to be
able to study the effects of changing the assumptions for the various parameters
upon the total costs. However, this requires far more information than is currently
available.
9 The costs of field establishment for barley (see below) include ploughing,
harrowing, rolling, sowing and fertilising. For the lupine cultivation we assume,
on the other hand, that light sandy soils would be selected in the early phases
where lupine could be seeded directly into the soil with no prior cultivation.
This will reduce costs of field establishment considerably. Experience from
fields established by the Soil Conservation Service has shown that
germination is often very poor and extensive winter kill occurs, especially
where frost heaving is a problem. To improve establishment in certain areas
either seed rates could be increased or a cover crop, such as annual grasses,
could be used together with N-fertilisation (Magnús Jóhannsson, personal
19
communication). The results presented in 2.4 indicate that some fields may
require fertilisation with phosphorus and/or sulphur for good establishment
and development. This would though increase the establishment costs
considerably but give better cover and, hence, higher yields in these areas.
The Soil Conservation Service is presently the only producer of lupine seed in
the country. Their current price is 3200 IKR/kg. We believe though that it
should be possible to produce lupine seed at considerably lower cost,
especially if seed production would become a part of the biomass production
and therefore we use 1000 IKR/kg in our calculations. We assume the
sowing rate of 5 kg/ha without the use of cover crop and N-fertiliser.
9 Four yield scenarios are used, established as combinations of two factors at
two levels each (Section 2.7). Yield t/ha DM is shown in the following table:
Harvested 4 years Harvested 8 years
Yield level year 1-4 year 5-8 year 1-4 year 5-8
Normal (3 t/ha) 3 0 3 2.25
High (4 t/ha) 4 0 4 3
9 We assume that fields will be fertilised with Superphosphate at the rate of 16
P and 24 S kg/ha at the time of sowing and then every second year
throughout the period of utilisation. This equals an annual application of 8 kg
P and 12 kg S/ha. More research is required into the use of fertilisers.
9 The dry matter content of the lupine mass in September is expected to be
25%, at least in the early half of the month. This must be wilted on the field
to 35-40% DM or more. The currently best known method of collecting the
material is baling. The cost of this operation is not evaluated in this report.
Costs,
IKR/ha
Establishment
Field establishment 10,000
Seed costs 5,000
Fertiliser at sowing 3,500
Fertiliser two years from sowing
(materials and application) 5,500
Total costs of establishment 24,000
Costs in years of production
Fertiliser
(materials and application) 2,750
Cutting and field drying 4,000
Yearly costs/ha 6,750
Cost, IKR/ kg DM
Harvested Harvested
Yield level 4 years 8 years
Normal (3 t/ha) 4.25 3.71
High (4 t/ha) 3.19 2.78
The results show the importance of developing cultivation and harvesting techniques
such that good yields can be obtained over an extended period of years.
20
Other costs not accounted for:
9 Capital costs
9 Fencing
Cost of electric fencing is at present around 140,000 IKR/ha (Handbók
bænda 2001). For example, fencing off an area of 1000 ha (25m × 40m)
would cost around 2000 kr/ha.
9 Lease of land, including land maintenance, property tax and insurance.
5.2. Grass
Average cost of hay per kg DM has been estimated by the Agricultural Economics
Institute of Iceland (2003a). The calculations include all cost elements, including
baling. Factors such as depreciation of investments may be overestimated. The costs
refer to high quality hay as forage and utilisable yield is assumed to be 3.85 t DM/ha.
Much higher DM yields can be expected from fields where the aim is to produce
biomass when no special qualities are sought. The cost has been recalculated for 7 t
DM/ha for hay bales and wrapped silage bales as 11.47 and 12.40 IKR/kg DM
respectively (Jónas Bjarnason personal comm.). Grass cut late in the season has
relatively high dry matter percentage and this would reduce some elements of the
cost. The baling cost would probably also be lower than in conventional farming since
the equipment is used more efficiently. If the herbage is intended for biomass
production it would be possible to economise on the use of fertiliser. This would,
however, require some experimentation.
The production of grass as biomass would differ from farming operations in several
respects so that the whole cost model would have to be revised. Cultivation of
species especially suited for biomass production, such as canary reed grass, is also
likely to increase the efficiency. Left-over hay-bales are a source of biomass of
special interest and so is herbage from set aside hayfields that would be available at
a much lower cost than presented above.
5.3. Barley
The Agricultural Economics Institute (1998) calculated the cost of barley production
in Iceland. The costs presented here have been adjusted to present day values and
current prices offered by contractors in the field. It is assumed that both the grain and
straw are of value for biomass production. Costs at two different yield levels are
considered, 6 or 8 t/ha of total biomass.
Grain
3 t/ha 4 t/ha
Soil cultivation and sowing, IKR/ha 18,000 18,000
Seed, IKR/ha 10,000 10,000
Fertiliser IKR/ha, 12,000 12,000
Harvest, IKR/ha 10,000 10,000
Total costs for barley grain, IKR/ha 50,000 50,000
Price, IKR/kg DM 16.67 12.50
Baling of straw, IKR/ha 8,700 11,600
Total costs, IKR/ha 58,700 61,600
Price, IKR/kg DM 9.78 7.70
21
These figures do not include costs of fungicides and herbicides. This is a growing
problem as barley cultivation becomes more extensive in the country and can involve
considerable costs, especially where cultivation is carried out for a long time in the
same fields. We don’t assume that the grain will be delivered dry from the farmer.
Wet grain is commonly stored in large bales at some additional cost.
Currently, the grain has to carry all these costs except for the baling of straw. Small
amounts of the straw have a market value of 5-7 IKR/kg DM, based on the quality of
the product. If all the biomass from the barley cultivation, i.e. both the grain and the
straw, can be utilised in the fermentation process the average costs for 6 and 8 t/ha
of biomass would then be 9.78 and 7.70 IKR/kg DM respectively.
5.4. Summary of cost analyses
The three analyses of cost of biomass from lupine, grass and barley are carried out
on different grounds so that the results can not be compared directly. The analysis is
most complete for barley with straw. In order to make the cost of lupine comparable
the cost of collecting the biomass, baling or otherwise, must be added. The cost of
having to wait four years for the first harvest must also be taken into account. The
cost of grass production is again analysed in a different way. If intended for biomass
production it will, in most cases, cost less than barley with straw, especially if
available from set aside fields or as left over bales.
6. Conclusions
The analyses carried out in this study show that there are several options available
for procurement of biomass in Iceland. Most attention is, in this report, given to the
Nootka lupine, grass and barley. Estimates of their feasibility depend to a large
extent on the assumptions that can be made. The most important factor is the DM
yields that can be obtained from each hectare of land.
The Nootka lupine has, so far, not been used for continuous production of any kind
except seed harvest and experimental results of sustainable biomass production are
very limited. It is particularly well suited for sandy areas that are presently nonproductive
and the cultivation could in some cases be included in a program of land
reclamation. Fertilisation with phosphorus and sulphur is in some cases required and,
in a longer perspective, fertilisation with other nutrients would also be required. The
cost of cultivation, cutting and wilting of the crop was estimated for four scenarios of
yield and longevity of the lupine in the field. The estimates range from 2.78 to 4.25
IKR/kg DM. The range of these estimates is an indication of the need to obtain more
reliable results on lupine cultivation and harvest.
Fairly good experience and experimental evidence is available on the yield that can
be expected from grass and barley fields, indicating that grass in particular could
probably be an economic source of biomass. Research, specially designed for the
production of biomass, is though needed. Late cut grass contains more cell wall
material, although less lignified, than the lupine. Set aside hay fields and left over
bales are an economic but limited source of biomass that would be a valuable
addition to any other source of biomass.
22
7. References
Agricultural Economics Institute of Iceland (1998). Hagkvæmni kornræktar á Íslandi ásamt
samantekt um stuðning við kornrækt í þekktum kornræktarlöndum [The economics of barley
cultivation in Iceland and summary of official subsidies of barley grain production in the
neighbouring countries]. http://www.hag.is/kornsk.pdf.
Agricultural Economics Institute of Iceland (2003a). Samantekt á áætluðum beinum kostnaði
við heyframleiðslu sumarið 2003 [Estimates of direct costs of hay production summer 2003].
http://www.hag.is/ pdf/01heykostnadur2003.pdf.
Agricultural Economics Institute of Iceland (2003b). Samantekt um áætlaðan kostnað við
rúllubagga og hefðbundna bagga [Estimates of costs of production of round silage bales and
conventional hay bales]. http://www.hag.is/ pdf/02heykostnadur2003.pdf.
Björnsson, H. (1987). Binding of solar energy in agriculture and its utilization (In Icelandic).
Náttúrufræðingurinn 57: 145-155.
Björnsson, H. and Dalmannsdóttir, S. (2004). Yield potential of Nootka lupin. In: Wild and
Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles. Proceedings of the Xth International Lupin
Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19-24 June 2002, in press.
Björnsson, H., Sveinbjörnsson, J. and Hermannsson, J. (2002). Þroski og fóðurgildi korns
[Maturity and feeding value of grain]. Ráðunautafundur 2002, 93-104.
Egner H, Riehm H & Domingo W R 1960. Untersuchungen über die chemische Bodenanalyse
als Grundlage für die Beurteilung des Nährstoffzustandes der Böden. II Chemische
Extraktionsmethoden zur Phosphor und Kalium Bestimmung. Kungl. Lantbrukshögskolans
Annaler 26: 199-215 (German).
Handbók bænda (2001). Bændasamtök Íslands.
Helgadóttir, Á., Pálmason, F. and Björnsson, H. (1977). The effect of sulphur fertilization on
hay yield and its influence on sulphur content of grass (In Icelandic, English Summary).
Journal of Agricultural Research in Iceland 9,2: 3-21.
Helgadóttir, Á. and Hermannsson, J. (2003). Verðmæti ræktunarlands [Value of land for
cultivation]. Ráðunautafundur 2003: 12-16.
Hermannsson, J. (2001). Ræktunarbelti á Íslandi [Growth Zones in Iceland]. Handbók bænda
51: 21-23.
Kamm, B. and Kamm, M. (2004). Biorefinery – Systems. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 18 (1): 1-6.
Landström, S. (2000). Rörflenodling – uthållig produktion och ekonomi.
http://www.sekon.slu.se/ ?PLO/ArvidsjaurHT100/RTkorttext.doc
Magnússon, B. and Sigurðsson, B.D. (1995). Protein, mineral and fiber content of Nootka
lupine. (In Icelandic). In: B. Magnússon (ed.). Biological Studies of Nootka Lupine (Lupinus
nootkatensis) in Iceland. Growth, Seed Set, Chemical Content and Effect of Cutting. RALA
Report 178, pp. 44-65.
Magnússon, B., Sigurðsson, B.D., Magnússon, S.H. and Baldursson, S. (1995). Growth and
yield of Nootka lupine (In Icelandic). In: B. Magnússon (ed.). Biological Studies of Nootka
Lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis) in Iceland. Growth, Seed Set, Chemical Content and Effect of
Cutting. RALA Report 178, pp. 9-27.
Magnússon, B., Magnússon, S.H. and Sigurðsson, B.D. (2001). Vegetation Succession in
Areas Colonized by the Introduced Nootka Lupin (Lupinus nootkatensis) in Iceland (In
Icelandic). RALA Report 207. 100 pp
Metúsalemsson, S. and Grétarsson, E. (2003). Nytjaland – Gróðurflokkun [Land use –
Vegetation classes]. Ráðunautafundur 2003: 260-263.
RALA Report 124. The Agricultural Research Institute, Reykjavík, 1987.
RALA Report 208. The Agricultural Research Institute, Reykjavík, 2001.
23
Sigurðsson, B.D., Magnússon, B. and Magnússon, S.H. (1995). Regrowth of Nootka lupine
after cutting (In Icelandic). In: B. Magnússon (ed.). Biological Studies of Nootka Lupine
(Lupinus nootkatensis) in Iceland. Growth, Seed Set, Chemical Content and Effect of Cutting.
RALA Report 178, pp. 28-37.
Tuveson, M. (1997). Vallväxter till fastbränsle och biogas. Fakta Mark/Växter 12.
Van Soest, P.J. (1967). Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its
application to forages. Journal of Animal Science 26: 119-128.
Þórsson, J. and Guðmundsson, Ó. (1993). Fóðrun á alaskalúpínu [Feeding with the Nootka
lupine]. In: Ráðunautafundur 1993: 295-306.
Þórsson, J. and Hlíðberg, K. 1997. Alkaloids in Nootka lupine, Lupinus nootkatensis (in
Icelandic). Búvísindi 11/97: 75-89.

Please read this case study and write a paragraph for the following section showing the idea that is mention in this section

Market Feasibility (200 to 250 words maximum)

1- What is the factory produce?
2- – What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a market problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using market feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the market feasibility solution?
Technical Feasibility: (200 to 250 words maximum)
1- What is the factory produce?
2- – What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a technical problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using technical feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the technical feasibility solution?
Financial Feasibility: (200 to 250 words maximum)
1- What is the factory produce?
2- – What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a financial problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using financial feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the technical feasibility solution?
Environmental Feasibility: (200 to 250 words maximum)
1- What is the factory produce?
2- What is the problem that the factory was facing? (The problem should related to a environmental problem)
3- How the problem had solved by the factory? (The solution was solved by using environmental feasibility study)
4- What is the result that the factory got after applying the environmental feasibility solution?
Note: Please site the sentences and write the references as APA style.
You can do search by your own but it should related to the case study of the PDF file, and do not forget to put the references.

Appendix to:
Evaluation of the choice of biomass type, its quality (suitability), procurement and
cultivation, 24 month report to CRAFT Project No: CRAF-1999-70986:
Biochemicals and Energy from sustainable Utilization of herbaceous
Biomass (BESUB)
Feasibility study of green biomass procurement.
Hólmgeir Björnsson, Áslaug Helgadóttir, Jón Guðmundsson, Þóroddur
Sveinsson and Jónatan Hermannsson
The Agricultural Research Institute, Keldnaholti, Reykjavík, Iceland
December 2004
RALA 029/JA-004
2
Table of Contents
Executive summary 3
1. Introduction 3
1.1. Land resources 3
1.2. Crops for biomass production 4
1.3. Quality of biomass 4
2. The Nootka lupine 5
2.1. Availability of Nootka lupine in southern Iceland 5
2.2. Potential lupine fields in southern Iceland 6
2.3. Sustainability of production 9
2.4. Nutrient requirements 10
2.5. Techniques for cultivation and harvesting 12
2.6. Quality factors 12
2.7. Scenarios for lupine biomass 14
3. Perennial grasses 14
3.1. Reed canary grass 14
3.2. Timothy 15
3.3. Other grass species 16
3.4. Set aside hayfields 16
3.5. Left-over hay bales 17
4. Annual crops 17
4.1. Barley grain and straw 17
4.2. Other annual crops 18
5. Cost analyses 18
5.1. Lupine 18
5.2. Grass 20
5.3. Barley 20
5.4. Summary of cost analyses 21
6. Conclusions 21
7. References 22
3
Executive summary
This report studies the feasibility of using a variety of crops for large scale biomass production
in Iceland. Extensive areas are available for such activities as only 8% of the 15.500 km2
below 200 m suitable for cultivation is currently in agricultural production.
The Nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis) is of primary interest as it can be cultivated on the
extensive sandy and gravely plains in southern Iceland. It is able to carry out symbiotic
fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, which eliminates the need for artificial nitrogen fertiliser. The
report identifies areas suitable for lupine production in southern Iceland but a larger part of
this is at some distance from a probable factory site where there is ample geothermal energy.
The Nootka lupine has, so far, not been used for continuous herbage production and
experimental results on sustainable biomass production are limited. Harvestable yields can
not be expected until after four years from establishment. The production potential varies
depending on soil type, harvest date and repeated harvests over years. Small scale
production could be restricted to favourable areas yielding about 5 t/ha DM over a period of
four years or even more. On the extensive sandy areas, on the other hand, yields around 3
t/ha could be expected. Application of phosphorus and sulphur will improve yield and
fertilisation with other nutrients would be required in the long run.
The cost of cultivation, cutting and wilting of the lupine crop was estimated for four scenarios
of yield and longevity of the lupine in the field. The estimates range from 2.78 to 4.24 IKR/kg
DM. The range of these estimates indicates the need to obtain more reliable results on lupine
cultivation and harvest.
Barley cultivation is steadily increasing and experiments have shown that a barley field can
give a total biomass in the range of 8-10 t/ha at moderate fertiliser rates, with a Harvest Index
of 0.5. In the context of the present project both grain and straw biomass for fermentation is
an option. The average cost for 8 t/ha of biomass would then be 7.70 IKR/kg DM. These
figures include the cost of harvesting the seed and baling the straw.
Perennial grasses, such as reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and timothy (Phleum
pratense), can give high sustainable DM yields if harvested in late summer and are thus an
economic source of biomass. However, research specially designed for the production of
biomass is needed. Set aside hayfields and left over hay bales could be a valuable addition to
any other source of biomass.
Biomass can be used as a substrate for a variety of industrial processes that make use of
different properties of the biomass. This will direct the choice of crop species and the
feasibility of the biomass procurement. The quality factors that affect the value of green or
wilted biomass are DM content at harvest and components making up the dry matter; ash,
protein, fat, cell wall components and a remainder that is a measure of water soluble nitrogen
free cell contents. Grasses contain more cell wall material for the production of fuels and
industrial raw materials than the lupine, which, on the other hand can be a source of valuable
alkaloids such as sparteins.
1. Introduction
1.1. Land resources
Iceland is located just below the Arctic Circle but the Gulf Stream secures mild
maritime climate. The conditions for biomass production are thus characterised by a
short and cool growing season and long and unstable winters. Agricultural land
generally is restricted to areas below 200 m above sea level. Assuming a growing
season of 130 days, from 7 May to 15 September, land suitable for cultivation can be
4
classified into three groups depending on the mean temperature during the growing
season. This depends, among other things, on the height above sea level, distance
from the sea and soil type. Zone 1 (mean temperature 10°C) covers land below 100
m in the south and west part of the country, and inland in the northeast and eastern
part. Zone 2 (mean temperature 9°C) covers land between 100 and 200 m in the
regions mentioned above and land below 100 m in other parts of the country, apart
from areas closest to the sea along the north and east coast of the country. Zone 3
(mean temperature 8°C) is the remaining area classified as land suitable for
cultivation (Hermannsson 2001).
This classification gives a good indication of where different crops can be grown. For
example, cultivation of barley for maturity is limited to Zone 1 where as grass for hay
production can be cultivated in all regions. Mapping of vegetation cover with the aid
of satelite image classification can be used for further planning of crop production
(Metúsalemsson & Grétarsson 2003, http://www.nytjaland.is).
1.2. Crops for biomass production
The Nootka lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis, alaskalúpína) has been used successfully
for land reclamation in Iceland for three to four decades. It has in many cases grown
luxuriously on areas that previously had only very thin plant cover. Extensive areas of
this kind still exist so that there is a potential for great increase of lupine cultivation.
The lupine belongs to the leguminous family and is able to carry out symbiotic
fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. This is an important economic feature since it
eliminates the need of nitrogen fertilisation whereas the need for fertilisation with
other nutrients is determined more by soil properties than the crop. The lupine is the
prime choice for this project. There is, however, no experience of its use as a crop.
Considerable effort was therefore put into studying its potential for this purpose and
the results are reported in Section 2.
The potential of the Nootka lupine for sustainable biomass production has been
studied in connection with the Icelandic Biomass Project (Björnsson & Dalmannsdóttir,
2004). New results are presented in Sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6. The lupine
samples obtained in these experiments have been analysed for alkaloid content in
another phase of this project (see Work Package 2).
Other crops considered for biomass production are grasses and annual crops, barley
in particular. Section 3 is devoted to grassed and Section 4 to annual crops. Cost
evaluations are reported in Section 5. Large scale production will lead to changes in
technology and cost of production, mostly towards lower cost. It was not attempted to
predict these changes.
1.3. Quality of biomass
The composition of biomass differs between species and varies depending on
growing conditions and harvest dates. Biomass can be used as a substrate for a
variety of industrial processes that make use of different properties of the biomass.
This will direct the choice of crop species and the feasibility of the biomass
procurement.
In the early stages of growth plants are rich in protein and other cell contents. They
are rich in minerals and are well suited as animal feed. They may also be rich in
special compounds such as alkaloids. As the plants grow older biomass is
accumulated as cell wall material, mostly classified as crude fibre, or translocated to
special storage organs, mostly as carbohydrates that are easily available for human
5
digestion and fermentation microbes. Old cell walls are usually lignified. The lignin is
non-available for most organisms except some fungi and reduces the availability of
other cell wall contents. At the termination of growth in late summer or autumn a
substantial relocation of materials takes place. About 50-70% of the plant protein is
the rubisco protein associated with the plant chlorophyll. The carbon dioxide
assimilating cell tissues with the rubisco protein are partly or totally dissolved, the
plant looses the green colour and senesces and the material is translocated to
storage organs in the case of annual plants and the root system in the case of
perennial plants. Minerals are also relocated to roots so that ash content is reduced.
In storage organs such as grain, fruits and potatoes, starch, sugars or plant oils are
compounds that are of value for industrial processing. The quality factors affecting
the value of green or wilted biomass (lignocellulosic) are dry matter content at
harvest and the content in dry matter (DM) of ash, protein, fat, cell wall components
(hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin) and a remainder that is a measure of water
soluble nitrogen free cell contents. These include sugars and water soluble polymeric
substances such as pectin and a variety of other substances. The cell wall
components are determined analytically in a system developed by Van Soest (1967)
as neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and lignin. The other
fractions were calculated as hemicellulose = NDF – ADF and cellulose = ADF –
lignin. The cell wall components have different potential as substrate for industrial
processes (Kamm and Kamm 2004). As a rule grasses are richer in cell wall material
than leguminous plants such as lupine. Some crops contain substances of special
value such as spartein in the Nootka lupine. Dry matter content is a quality factor
since DM<85% causes in general extra cost for harvest, transport and/or storage.
2. The Nootka lupine
2.1. Availability of Nootka lupine in southern Iceland
The Soil Conservation Service in Iceland has, alone or in cooperation with others,
established 9500 ha of lupine fields over the last twelve years (1991-2002), of which
about 5900 ha are in southern Iceland (Soil Conservation Service 2003). To this can
be added older lupine fields and areas planted by others (size unknown). If these
fields were to be utilised for biomass procurement many of them would require some
pre-treatment such as clearing of large stones. As most of these fields are on sandy
soil they would be expected to last for a number of years if they will be harvested
after 1 September.
The cost of cultivation has in most cases only been the production and sowing of
lupine seed. No commercial use has so far been made of the biomass. The standing
biomass increases with age in young lupine fields. In four well developed fields in
southern Iceland (> 20 years old) the biomass was in the range 3-10 t DM/ha
(Magnússon et al. 2001). Lupine standing biomass was measured in 1997 in a fertile
field at Korpa Experimental Station
and at three sites in southern Iceland
where lupine could potentially be
grown on large areas of sandy soils
(Table 1).
The harvest figures in Table 1 all
represent fields where biomass has
been allowed to accumulate over a
Table 1. Lupine standing biomass DM t/ha in
1997 (Guðmundsson, unpublished report)

15-20 Oct. 20-21 Nov.
Korpa 7.5 7.4
Geitasandur 1.7 1.6
Markarfljótsaurar 3.8 1.8
Skógasandur 2.4 1.3
6
number of years without the intervention of harvest. The three sandy areas measured
are most representative of those considered for biomass production. Biomass is less
in October-November than in late summer or early autumn.
2.2. Potential lupine fields in southern Iceland
A rough estimate has shown that lupine fields could potentially be established on
nearly 100 000 ha in southern Iceland, assuming that lupine can be cultivated on all
glacial waste sands, gravel soil and the extensive sandy areas along the coast
(Guðmundsson, unpublished report). However, only limited areas can be cultivated
each year and it takes at least four years before a lupine field can be harvested. The
planning of large scale planting of lupine is a complicated issue and involves a
number of factors such as agreements with land owners and environmental
assessment. It is therefore not attempted at this stage.
Another approach to estimate the potential areas for biomass production is to use the
currently ongoing mapping of vegetation cover with the aid of satelite image
classification (Metúsalemsson & Grétarsson 2003, http://www.nytjaland.is). The
vegetation classes are indicative of potential land use. Attention is limited to the
western part of southern Iceland where the greatest lowland area is concentrated.
Within this area there is access to plenty of geothermal energy. The area below 100
m, i.e. Zone 1, is of greatest interest since only minor areas 100-200 m above sea
level are suited for cultivation. An outline of the areas is marked on the erosion map
of Iceland on Fig. 1, and a slightly simplified vegetation map is shown on Fig. 2. The
100 m isoline is shown on both maps. The size of areas of the simplified
classification is given in Table 2. The results are sudivided into 4 areas, Árnessýsla
low areas (1 and 2), Árnessýsla upper areas (3), Rangárvallasýsla between Þjórsá
and Ytri-Rangá (4) and Rangárvallasýsla between Ytri-Rangá and Markarfljót (5).

Table 2. Land areas in central South Iceland, km2
, with references to numbered areas on Fig.
1 and 2.
In
Icelandic
on Fig. 2
Ölfus, Flói
and Skeið
(1, 2)
Uppsveitir
Árnessýslu
(3)
Rangárþ.
vestra
(4)
Rangárþ.
eystra að
Markarflj. (5)
Total
Cultivated Ræktað 66 43 54 50 213
Grassland Graslendi 65 40 66 67 238
Rich heathland Ríkt
mólendi
103 99 80 51 333
Poor heathland Rýrt
mólendi
173 159 162 134 628
Brush and wood Kjarr 31 41 18 38 118
Mosses 1 34 15 18 10 77
Poorly drained
and bog
Votlendi 92 159 185 94 530
Partly vegetated
(<50%)
Lítt gróið 116 28 139 93 376
Total 0-100 m
(Zone 1)
737 585 744 537 2603

100-200 m
(Zone 2)
77 595 352 47 1071

1
Included with partly vegetated on the map
Fig. 1. Location of the areas tabulated in Table 2. The 100 m line is yellow.
Fig. 2. Mapping of vegetation classes and numbering of areas for results shown in Table 2. For English version of class names
see Table 2. Blue is water and white is snow or clouds. The 100 m line, the upper limit of vegetation area measurements, is blue.
The sandy gravely areas that are the first choice for the Nootka lupine fall within the
classes Partly vegetated, Poor heathland and Mosses, often in extensive continuous
areas. The total area of these classes is 1081 km2
and the greater part of this land
would not be suited for this kind of cultivation. Of the 1000 km2
in southern Iceland
previously evaluated as potential lupine areas only about 10% fall within the areas
tabulated. The greater part of the typical lupine areas is found further east along the
south coast as can be inferred on Fig. 1, although at a greater distance from a
probable factory site.
Very limited continuous areas suitable for biomass production such as lupine fields
are found between 100 and 200 m. The cultivated and grassland areas are only 38
and 26 km2
respectively within this zone.
2.3. Sustainability of production
Previous experiments have shown that the lupine plants badly tolerate harvesting at
the time of flowering from May/June to mid August (Magnússon et al. 1995,
Sigurðsson et al. 1995). Later studies have confirmed that survival of the lupine is
poor if it is harvested before mid or late August. This is of particular relevance where
the aim is to harvest valuable quality components such as sparteine. The lupine must
not be harvested late, otherwise the sought after qualities may be lost. If harvested
too early harvest of lupine the following year can not be expected. On fertile land
other plants will take over and may give some yield in the years to follow. On infertile
land a new cover of lupine may develop in a few years. This has though not been
confirmed in experiments.
Sustainablility of lupine production was studied in a series of experiments 1998-2004.
In order to obtain rapid and even establishment pot-grown lupine plants were planted
at 33 cm spacing in a fertile field at Korpa Experimental Station in spring 1998. The
development of the lupine biomass was probably at least two years earlier than on a
field established from lupine seed. In 1999 maximum biomass, 3.5 t DM/ha, was
obtained on 1 September and a year later maximum biomass of previously intact
lupines had reached 5.8 t DM/ha on 8 August. The standing biomass in early October
had reduced to 1.5 and 3.3 t DM/ha in 1999 and 2000 respectively. In both years this
was about 60% of the biomass on the plots on 15 August (Björnsson &
Dalmannsdóttir 2004).
On the lupine field planted in 1998 a harvest experiment with three replicates was
started in 2000 and harvested annually until 2004 when all plots were cut on the
same date (Table 3). The experiment was designed with different harvest dates and
combinations of harvest dates. The first two harvest dates were too early so that
practically no lupine remained the following year. The field is fertile and other
vegetation soon established in the plots. Its yield was measured in 2003 and 2004 or
in 2004 only. When first cut the yield was higher than on lupine plots that had been
cut annually. The following year the yield had declined however and this shows that
fertilizer is needed when nitrogen fixing plants such as the lupine are missing from
the sward. On plots cut late in 2003 the lupine recovered to some degree and made
up nearly half of the yield in 2004.
10
Table 3. DM yield of lupine harvested annually at different dates 2000-2003, DM yield and
herbage composition of the final harvest on 23 August 2004. Plots where lupine retreated
after early date of harvest 2000 were also harvest 2003-2004.
Harvest dates Lupine yield, DM t/ha Herbage composition 2004 %
2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Lupine Grasses Weeds
17.7 4.2
2.8. 6.0
4.9. 5.9. 3.9. 2.9. 5.5 5.3 4.6 4.2 4.0 79 20 1
4.10. 5.10. 15.10. 15.10. 3.5 4.4 3.1 4.8 4.4 82 16 2
4.10. 16.8. 15.10. 21.8. 3.5 7.2 2.7 4.0 4.6 54 45 1
Not
cut
16.8. 16.8. 21.8. 7.2 4.7 4.7 4.2 40 54 6

21.8. 5.2 3.1 8 79 13
2.9. 5.9 3.6 38 57 5
Plots where lupine
retreated after 2000,
harv. again 2004 15.10. 4.3 5.2 45 52 3
Cut 2004 only 5.6 19 74 6

SED 0.34 0.49 0.50 0.81 0.94 15 15 5
It seems that cutting lupine annually in early September gives the best result. Lupine
still made up the largest part of the herbage although the yield declined at the rate of
0.4 t DM/ha per year. The four different harvest schemes for lupine resulted in similar
yield (not significantly different) when harvested on the same date in 2004 although
the lupine made up only about one half of the herbage on plots that were harvested
in mid August two or three times.
Plots harvested on 4-15 October 2000-2003 showed yield decline from early
September except in 2003. Throughout summer the DM content in fresh lupine was
25% and often <20%. Plots with <70% lupine had >25% DM at harvest in 2004 on
the other hand because other plants have higher DM content than lupine late in the
season.
The main advantage of delaying the harvest from August to October is to increase
dry matter in the fresh biomass in order to reduce the requirement for field drying
before baling. DM in October was 55% and 44% in 2000 and 2002 respectively but
only about 30% in 2001 and 2003. Lupine litter quickly disintegrates and under wet
and warm conditions the loss in DM yield may be appreciable if harvest is delayed for
several weeks in return for only limited gain in DM content. There is no experience of
field drying of the lupine. Appreciable losses can be expected, especially mechanical
loss of leaves, and in wet weather easily degradable substances will be lost.
2.4. Nutrient requirements
The experimental results summarized in 2.3 were obtained on a fertile field at Korpa
Experimental Station without any application of fertilisers. Plant nutrients are
removed from the field with the harvest, especially if harvested before wilting, and
repeated harvest will, sooner or later, deplete the soil unless replenished with some
kind of fertiliser. It is assumed that a large scale lupine cultivation would be
concentrated on unfertile, light sandy soils (2.1, 2.2), which are likely to become
depleted of nutrients fairly quickly.
A fertiliser experiment has thus been initiated on a very poor site at Geitasandur in
southern Iceland in order to gain some insight into the fertiliser requirements of the
lupine under such conditions. Four soil samples were taken from the top 10 cm in
previously nonfertilized plots, two samples in each of two out of four experimental
11
replicates. In each replicate one sample was taken half way between lupine plants
and the other close to the plants. The mean results for all samples appear in Table 4.
Results for elements such as Ca and Mg show similarity to Icelandic andosols
whereas organic matter (C and N) content is very low compared to such soils. This is
because the topsoil, rich in organic matter, has eroded away. In the samples taken
close to the plant C and N were on average 0.35 and 0.035 respectively. Comparison
with the overall mean does not indicate accumulation of soil organic matter near the
lupine over the five experimental years.
Table 4. Measurements on soil samples. Chemical analyses were done on fine soil (<2mm).
pH was measured in water, readily soluble P and cations were extracted in AL-solution
(Egner et al. 1960), C and N were measured in samples burnt at 900°C in pure oxygen.
Gravel %, mg/100g meq/100g % of DM
> 2mm pH P Ca Mg K Na N% C% C/N
21 6.6 0.78 6.5 3.4 0.37 0.46 0.034 0.35 10.2
The experiment was established in spring 1999 by planting lupine plants and it was
first harvested in autumn 2003. The results are summarized in Fig. 3. This is, by
nature, a long term experiment but results obtained so far have already shown
significant effects of phosphorus (P) and, in particular, sulphur (S).
0
1
2
3
4
5
2003 2004
DM t/ha
P since 1999 No fert S S+P S+P 2004
Fig. 3. Lupine yield after different fertilizer
treatments. SED=0.4 is indicated on top of
bars.
At harvest on Sept. 2 2003 plants
receiving S in the spring were green and
lush while other plants were yellow and
wilting. Survival was good on the S-plots
although the yield was much less in
2004 than in 2003. S-fertilization in 2004
only did not help much (column to the
far right, grey colour). P was applied to
a treatment yearly from the planting of
the experiment. These plants showed
some advantage from the beginning but
some undervegetation developed also.
Survival of lupine plants receiving P and
no S was poor.
These results are not unexpected since sulphur is an essential element for protein
synthesis. Values of the ratio N/S <20 indicate adequate sulphur supply. Sulphur
deficiency has previously been found on light soils in all parts of Iceland (Helgadóttir
et al. 1977). Yield samples from the experiment were analysed and the results
showed increase in both N- and S-content and a slight decrease in the N/S ratio to
values <20.
The results of the experiment show the need for S-fertilisation from the beginning and
that fertilisation with phosphorus is also useful for good establishment of the lupine
and for increasing the yield. Sulphur is essential for the survival of lupine following
harvest. The experiment has only been harvested twice and no effect of the depletion
of plant nutrients has been found. The soil is however poor in potassium and the
need for potassium fertilisation would probably appear after few years of harvest.
Yield declined more rapidly following harvest than on the more fertile field in the
experiment at Korpa reported in Section 2.3, even on the plots receiving both P and
S. The biomass was still at a low level in 2003 although the plants were established
in the greenhouse before planting and had developed in the field since 1999.
Fertilisation with sulphur from the beginning might give a better stand. Early
12
fertilisation with P may encourage the development of other vegetation, especially
grasses, which competes with the lupine thus accelerating the retreat of the lupine
following harvest. A harvesting scheme with harvest every other year should be
considered.
2.5. Techniques for cultivation and harvesting
The Soil Conservation Service has ample experience with establishing lupine fields
all around the country. In later years fields have been established using slot seeders
without prior cultivation, generally with adequate results. Only rarely, fields are either
ploughed and harrowed or harrowed only prior to sowing. At sowing the seed must
be inoculated and scarified to increase germination. Sowing must be carried out as
early as possible in spring to ensure good establishment of the lupine sward. In order
to enhance establishment a cover crop is sometimes used, such as Italian ryegrass,
giving short term cover and it is often fertilised in the year of sowing. The new results
presented in the previous section suggest that on poor soils some fertilization is
needed.

So far lupine fields have only been harvested for seed production. The lupine is then
cut fairly high with a combine harvester leaving a good deal of standing biomass.
With this practice the fields can in most cases be harvested for many years.
Harvesting of biomass for industrial purposes will have to be carried out in the same
manner as for hay production and it will make use of comparable equipment. This
type of harvesting is harder on the lupine than harvesting for seed production. Firstly,
cutting height is much lower, leaving less standing biomass for plant recovery.
Secondly, cutting, turning, gathering and baling of the biomass involves heavy traffic
of machinery of the lupine field. This has not been tested but it is likely that the lupine
plant would be vulnerable to such treatment. It is therefore unrealistic to assume that
fields that are harvested in early September would be harvested for many
consecutive years. It is important to obtain experimental evidence on the persistence
of lupine to repeated harvest and the use of heavy machinery.
The best known technique for harvest and conservation of biomass is to use round
bales. The fresh biomass must be wilted in the field to a minimum of 35-40% DM.
Better results are obtained if it can be wilted to 50-60% DM. This also reduces the
cost of baling and transport since each bale will contain more dry matter and less
water is thus transported. The results presented in 2.3 indicate that delaying harvest
until October is not reliable to get lupine biomass ready for baling without field drying.
2.6. Quality factors
The Nootka lupine is potentially valuable as a lignocellulosic substrate for the
production of fuels or industrial raw material and as a source of valuable alkaloids.
The content of alkaloids is generally expected to decline with time during the summer
although this is not always the case. Alkaloids have been analysed in series of
samples from the summers 1987, 1988, 1991 (Magnússon & Sigurðsson 1995), 1990
(Þórsson & Guðmundsson 1993), 1995 (Þórsson & Hlíðberg 1997), 1999 and 2000
(Wink 2004, WP2, Final scientific report from UH). Methods of analysis and the
alkaloids determined vary between investigations. The sampling in 1999 and 2000
was very intensive. The results from 2000 show a decline in spartein content from
June to September as expected whereas in 1999 there was a maximum in August. A
further summary of the results is not attempted here.
Cell wall components, protein, ash and in some cases fat were analysed in lupine
samples from 1987, 1988 (Magnússon & Sigurðsson 1995), 1990 (Þórsson &
13
Guðmundsson 1993), 2000 and 2001. In 1988 the lupine was fractioned into leaves,
stem and infloresence and the fractions analysed separately. Stems are the most
important fraction, increasing after June 20 from 56 to 64% (Magnússon et al. 1995)
and the other fractions are more prone to mechanical losses in harvest. The results
from 1988 cited here are for stems only. Samples from 2000 and 2001 are from the
experiment reported in 2.3 and the results are original to this investigation (Table 5).
The results are averages of two samples, except fat was determined in only one
sample. NDF in samples from 1987, 1988, 2000 and 2001 is shown on Fig. 4. The
results from 1987 and 1988 are readings off the published diagrams. The results
1990 were not available for this presentation.
Table 5. Chemical analysis of lupine, % of DM.
Date of cut
2000 2001
Protein Fat Ash Cellulose

Hemicellulose

Lignin Water
soluble
Samples from 2000
17.07 17.5 3.5 7.0 22.1 17.6 5.3 26.9
2.08. 14.9 2.9 7.6 24.1 17.5 7.2 25.8
4.09. 12.0 2.5 7.2 26.2 18.7 8.0 25.5
4.10. 10.4 2.1 4.1 32.4 20.4 10.1 20.2
Samples from 2001
Not cut 16.08 13.3 3.1 7.2 22.8 16.6 8.9 28.1
4.09. 5.09 13.4 2.7 8.5 21.0 16.2 5.9 32.3
4.10. 5.10 9.9 2.5 7.4 28.9 17.3 7.42
26.6
SED 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.1

Ash content was similar to the results
from 1987-88 except for the low value in
October 2000 that indicates transport of
mineral nutrients from leaves and stems
to roots. Leaves are however richer in
minerals than shoots (Magnússon &
Sigurðsson 1995) and loss of leaves in
autumn would lead to lower ash content.
This difference is small and stems are
expected to be >60% so that the loss of
leaves is probably not sufficient to
explane the decline in ash content.
The content of cell wall material (NDF)
increases as the plant matures and it
differs between years (Fig. 4). In 1988
the results presented are for stems only
and this explains the high values that
year. In 2001 the results show decline of NDF from August to September. The
August samples are from plots that were not cut in 2000 and the yield was higher
than on plots cut in September 2000 (Table 5). This result is typical of the complexity
that may occur when dealing with biological material. The increase from September
to October is probably enrichment due to loss of easily degradable material rather
than formation of new cell wall material. Cellulose was near 49% of NDF in 2000 and
2001 and changed little with time whereas hemicellulose decreased and lignin
increased. Lignin was similar in 1987-88 as in 2000-2001, but hemicellulose was less
and cellulose higher relative to NDF.

2
The values measured were 7.5 and 14.6. The ratio of lignin to cellulose is fairly stable. It was
concluded that the value 14.6 was a factor of two off and it was therefore replaced with 7.3.
Sample date
62
60
55
93
50
31
45
40
0
NDF
July August September
1987
1988
2001
2000
Fig. 4. NDF % of dry matter. SED = 1.1 in
2000 and 2001
14
Lupine has lower content of cell wall material (NDF) than grass or barley as reported
in later sections and, consequently, it has greater content of water soluble materials.
A further consequence is that the water content remains high (<25% DM) towards
the end of the growing season while e.g. grasses develop much higher DM content
as the cell walls become more dominant in the biomass. The high content of soluble
materials is probably also the reason why the lupine litter reduces so quickly.
2.7. Scenarios for lupine biomass
The current knowledge on the production potential of the Nootka lupine was
summarised in previous sections. The results indicate high variability and only limited
information is available on the effect of repeated harvests. Small scale production
could be restricted to favourable areas yielding about 5 t/ha of DM over a period of
four years or even more. On the extensive sandy areas that have been proposed as
lupine fields in the future, however, the measurements done so far indicate yields
below 3 t/ha DM. Modest use of fertilisers will most likely improve the yield potential
so that 3 t/ha DM, average over fields and four years of harvest, is considered the
most realistic figure for use in cost evaluations. Higher yield, 4 t/ha DM, is though
also considered as a scenario. This could be achieved either by choosing land for
cultivation more selectively or by improving cultivation. The latter option would,
though, involve some extra costs.
As we lack both practical and experimental evidence on the response of the lupine to
repeated harvests over time we consider here two scenarios, either four years or
eight years. Yield of lupine fields is expected to decline with time and this should be
taken into account when comparing the two scenarios. The decline is taken to be
25% from the first four to the last four years, i.e. to 2.25 and 3 t/ha DM for the
scenarios 3 and 4 t/ha DM respectively.
3. Perennial grasses
Perennial grass is the main crop plant in Iceland and covers 90% of the agricultural
land currently under cultivation. Grasses are thus probably the best crop for
production of biomass when no special qualities are sought.
3.1. Reed canary grass
Grass as a source of biomass has been extensively studied in Sweden and it has
been concluded that reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea, strandreyr) is the
best species for this purpose (Tuveson 1977, Landström 2000). Preliminary results
indicate that the same is also the case in Iceland. In Sweden and Finland the
recommendations are to let the grass stand until late winter. Although this is at the
cost of some loss in biomass there are several advantages. In these countries there
is usually a short period in late winter when the standing grass can be harvested with
low moisture content so that there is no need for drying. The translocation of minerals
to the roots has twofold advantage; (i) there will be less ash remaining after burning
the material, this would probably also be an advantage in some other uses of the
biomass, and (ii) lower amounts of minerals and nitrogen are removed with the
herbage and the need for fertilisation is much reduced.
At Korpa Experimental Station in South-Iceland yield was measured on a ten year old
reed canary grass field in 1986 and 1987. The field had only been cut once before
and had not been fertilised but the standing biomass was burnt each year in late
15
winter or early spring. In the two harvest years the field was fertilised in spring with
the equivalent of 120 kg N/ha. The mean yield in late August over the two years was
10.8 t DM/ha. A field with Bromus inermis (fóðurfax) and similar history gave 8.7 t
DM/ha (RALA Report 124, p. 64-65). In Iceland reed canary grass has been used for
making compost in mushroom production with good results (Ragnar Kristjánsson
personal communication). The present area is about 150 ha and it is fertilised as a
hay field. It is usually harvested in October and dried on the field before baling. It will
break if it stands too long.
3.2. Timothy
Timothy (Phleum pratense, vallarfoxgras) is the most valuable fodder grass in
Iceland. The yield is commonly about 8 t DM/ha when harvested in early August.
In 1979 and 1980 timothy was sampled weekly throughout the summer at Korpa
Experimental Station. In 1979, which was a particularly cold and short summer,
maximum yield of 9.2 t DM/ha was obtained on 28 August and in 1980, an early and
warm summer, maximum yield of 10.6 t DM/ha was obtained on 12 August. These
values can be regarded as an estimate of the potential maximum yield. Immediately
following the maximum, yield started to decline at approximately the same rate as the
previous growth rate, and the loss of protein was even more rapid. The growth rate
was about 140 kg DM/ha/day over more than 50 days and this compares well with
growth rates of high yielding plants in other countries, although the growing seasons
may be longer (Björnsson 1987). Even higher potential yield can be obtained for
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne, vallarrýgresi) but its cultivation is less reliable.
Limited information is available on the sustainability of production of grasses when
cut in late season every year. Thus, as a part of the current project an old timothy
field, slightly mixed with other grass species and broad leaved weeds, was harvested
five times at unconventional harvest dates from 18 August 2003 to 24 May 2004
(Table 5). The fertilisation in spring 2003 was 120 kg N/ha. Fertilisation on 24 May
2004 was 80 kg N/ha and all plots, including plots not harvested before, were
harvested on 25 June 2004. The plots were arranged in a randomized block
experiment with 4 replicates.
Spring growth had started when
plots were harvested on 24 May
2004 and the yield was composed of
3.4 t/ha litter and 0.9 t/ha fresh
grass. On plots not cut 2003-4 one
third of the yield was litter or 2.1 t/ha
and 4.2 t/ha green grass. The results
demonstrate that wilting had begun
on 15 October although the biomass
was still wet due to wet weather
conditions and lodging of the grass.
Residual effect on yield of different harvest was measured by equal fertilization and
harvesting all plots on the same date in 2004. Yield was highest on plots that were
harvested in late fall or winter. Although not statistically significant these results
suggest that more plant nutrients were available due to recycling of nutrients when
the biomass is allowed to wilt prior to harvest as suggested in the previous section.
The harvest date in March was chosen following a period of dry weather and the
biomass was sufficiently dry to be stored without further drying. The standard error of
Table 5. Yield and DM % of timothy cut from late
summer to spring and yield the following summer.
Date of harvest DM t/ha DM t/ha
2003-4
DM %
2003-4 2003-4 2004
20.08. 25 7.3 4.3
05.09. 17 7.4 4.2
15.10. 21 5.8 4.5
22.03. 84 4.1 4.7
24.05. 47 4.3 3.0
Not harvested
2003-4
6.3
SED 1.0 0.62 0.30
16
difference (SED) for DM % is valid only for comparison of the three earliest harvest
dates.
Table 6. Cell and cell wall contents of timothy in late summer and winter 2003-2004 % of DM.
Date Protein Fat Ash Cellulose

Hemicellulose
Lignin Water
soluble
20.08. 6.6 2.2 6.9 29.1 27.2 3.5 24.5
05.09. 6.6 2.3 7.1 29.9 27.6 3.5 23.1
15.10. 6.2 2.0 6.2 34.6 29.7 4.9 16.5
22.03. 4.9 1.6 6.1 38.1 33.5 5.5 10.4
SED 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.3
Cell and cell wall contents were determined in samples from 2 replicates except for
fat (one replicate only) (Table 6). No significant changes in forage composition were
detected from 20.8. to 5.9. In autumn and winter water soluble cell materials
decreased and the cell wall material (NDF) increased from 61 to 77% of the DM.
There was also a minor decline in hemicellulose relative to NDF. Timothy contains
more cell wall material, although less lignified, than the Nootka lupine. The total
cellulose mass decreased from 2.2 t/ha in early September to 1.6 t/ha in March. For
uses when cell wall materials are of greatest value the gain by getting sufficiently dry
yield, without need for any further drying, may very well outweigh the loss in biomass.
3.3. Other grass species
Some other species like tufted hair grass (Deschampsia caespitosa,
snarrótarpuntur), Bering hair grass (D. beringensis, beringspuntur) and meadow
foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis, háliðagras) commonly give yields comparable to
timothy. Among these, tufted hair grass grows particularly well under sub optimal
conditions, such as in infertile sandy soils and where severe winter conditions prevail.
It is known, however, to accumulate much silicon and the ash content is high. Some
other common species can also be of interest and some of them may yield equally
well when cut once and twice.
3.4. Set aside hayfields
The traditional farming sector in Iceland has changed considerably in recent years.
Number of dairy cows and sheep has reduced by 22 and 43% respectively from 1980
to 2001. Number of horses has increased on the other hand by 41% in the same
period. This has meant that fodder requirements have dropped significantly. At the
same time yield from each hectare has increased as a result of changes in hay
making techniques and fodder conservation as well as increasing temperature.
Fodder is now predominantly preserved in silage bales and this has lead to both
higher yield and quality of the fodder. All these changes mean that less cultivated
land is required for the conservation of winter forage and thousands of hectares of
grass fields will be set aside in the foreseeable future. It is important to find use for
these fields for two reasons. Firstly, large investments are at stake that may get lost if
the fields are allowed to degrade. Secondly, it is important to find ways to maintain
the quality of the cultivation for future needs for fodder and food that may arise
unexpectedly in the future.
Set aside hayfields can provide cheap raw material for biomass production. Firstly,
their utilisation doesn’t involve any establishment costs. Secondly, in contrast to
fodder production species composition of the sward is of little significance as
secondary species can give high DM yields if harvested late in the season. There is,
17
therefore, no need for sward renovation. Thirdly, it is probably possible to get away
with less fertiliser than for the production of high quality fodder. Fourthly, biomass
production will provide extra income (or become an additional activity) for farmers
that are otherwise engaged in the production of meat or milk. All this means that
prices for each kg DM produced in this way should be considerably less than for hay
primarily intended as high quality fodder (see 5.2).
3.5. Left-over hay bales
In a normal year farmers produce more hay than is required for the winter feeding of
the animals. This is essential in order to meet poor hay making years or late advent
of spring. Hay is most commonly stored as silage with 50-60% dry matter content in
bales covered with several layers of plastic film. It is not practiced to store hay bales
for more than one winter so in a normal year farmers have to get rid of some old
bales. Under favourable conditions for grass growth, such as in summer 2003,
farmers do not even make hay from all the grass that grows on their fields.
For example, the surplus in southern Iceland alone from summer 2002 was
approximately 100,000 m3
or 20,000 t DM (The Farmers Association in South
Ideland, personal communication). This is unusually much and exceeds the winter
feed required of around 20%. The willingness of farmers to sell some of their
reserves to a biomass factory would depend on how much the factory would pay in
excess of the baling costs. This cost is presently around 2.50 to 4 IKR/kg DM
(Agricultural Economics Institute 2003b).
4. Annual crops
4.1. Barley grain and straw
The cultivation of barley is steadily increasing in Iceland and is approaching 3000 ha
at present, about half of which is in southern Iceland. A large increase in grain
production is forecast in the foreseeable future (Helgadóttir and Hermannsson 2003).
The benefits of this development are not only the value of the grain as such. The
cultivation of barley introduces crop rotation as a normal farming practice. This is
beneficial to other crops and would be of particular value e.g. in the potato growing
districts if the farmers could find a market for the grain produced. Experiments at
Korpa Experimental Station have shown that a barley field can give a total biomass in
the range of 8-10 t DM/ha at 60 kg N/ha. The Harvest Index (HI), i.e. grain in
proportion to the total standing biomass, was around 0.5 (RALA Report 208, pp. 50-
52). In the context of the present project both the grain and straw biomass as
fermentation material might also be an option.
Typically the dry matter in barley grain is composed of 60% starch and 20% NDF and
the remainder is mainly protein, fat and ash (Björnsson et al. 2002). The NDF is
mostly composed of hemicellulose and about one quarter (5% of DM) is cellulose.
Four samples of straw from an experiment with different harvest dates of barley
(Björnsson et al. 2002) were analysed for the present study. NDF (cell wall
components) increased from 68 to 77% when harvest was delayed for four weeks
from 30 August to 27 September and cellulose content increased from 32 to 37%.
The fat content was 1.5% of DM. The experimental field was not homogeneous and
nitrogen mineralization differed significantly within the experiment. On plots with high
N-mineralization the straw continued growing and remained green into autumn,
indicating higher protein content. The straw was also less lignified with only 5.1%
18
lignin compared to 10.5% on plots where the straw stopped growing when the grain
matured. Cutting dates did not have effect on lignin content in this small study.
The production of barley grain has to compete with subsidised imports from the EU. If
the straw can be given a market value the economy would change. Presently the
growers are striving for a high HI. Barley is mostly grown on light soils where the HI is
around 0.5 and the protein content in straw is normally 4% of DM. On soils that
release sufficient nitrogen throughout the growing season, i.e. organic soils and other
soils rich in organic matter, the HI will be lower and the maturity of the grain crop is
sometimes delayed. The straw becomes less lignified and if it remains green until
harvest the protein content may be as high as 6-7%. The total yield of biomass is
often greater than on lighter soils and, if the straw has a value, the production may
become more profitable.
4.2. Other annual crops
Other annual crops, apart from barley, are efficient in producing biomass since they
utilize the growing season better than perennial crops that prepare early for the
winter. This includes annual ryegrass, cereals like oats and ryewheat that can not be
grown for maturity, root crops like swedes and turnips, and potatoes. These might be
considered if qualities other than those found in wilting lupine, grass or barley can be
given value.
5. Cost analyses
Three models will be considered in the cost analyses:
1. Lupine harvested in early September fox maximum biomass production
2. Grass cut in early September for maximum biomass production
3. Barley grain and straw
Calculations are based on information from the Soil Conservation Service, the
Agricultural Economics Institute, the Agricultural Association and through personal
communication. All estimates are based on 2003 prices.
5.1. Lupine
A number of assumptions are made in the following simple cost estimates. It is clear
that were the assumptions changed the cost estimates would change accordingly. It
would be desirable to set up a model involving the different cost parameters to be
able to study the effects of changing the assumptions for the various parameters
upon the total costs. However, this requires far more information than is currently
available.
9 The costs of field establishment for barley (see below) include ploughing,
harrowing, rolling, sowing and fertilising. For the lupine cultivation we assume,
on the other hand, that light sandy soils would be selected in the early phases
where lupine could be seeded directly into the soil with no prior cultivation.
This will reduce costs of field establishment considerably. Experience from
fields established by the Soil Conservation Service has shown that
germination is often very poor and extensive winter kill occurs, especially
where frost heaving is a problem. To improve establishment in certain areas
either seed rates could be increased or a cover crop, such as annual grasses,
could be used together with N-fertilisation (Magnús Jóhannsson, personal
19
communication). The results presented in 2.4 indicate that some fields may
require fertilisation with phosphorus and/or sulphur for good establishment
and development. This would though increase the establishment costs
considerably but give better cover and, hence, higher yields in these areas.
The Soil Conservation Service is presently the only producer of lupine seed in
the country. Their current price is 3200 IKR/kg. We believe though that it
should be possible to produce lupine seed at considerably lower cost,
especially if seed production would become a part of the biomass production
and therefore we use 1000 IKR/kg in our calculations. We assume the
sowing rate of 5 kg/ha without the use of cover crop and N-fertiliser.
9 Four yield scenarios are used, established as combinations of two factors at
two levels each (Section 2.7). Yield t/ha DM is shown in the following table:
Harvested 4 years Harvested 8 years
Yield level year 1-4 year 5-8 year 1-4 year 5-8
Normal (3 t/ha) 3 0 3 2.25
High (4 t/ha) 4 0 4 3
9 We assume that fields will be fertilised with Superphosphate at the rate of 16
P and 24 S kg/ha at the time of sowing and then every second year
throughout the period of utilisation. This equals an annual application of 8 kg
P and 12 kg S/ha. More research is required into the use of fertilisers.
9 The dry matter content of the lupine mass in September is expected to be
25%, at least in the early half of the month. This must be wilted on the field
to 35-40% DM or more. The currently best known method of collecting the
material is baling. The cost of this operation is not evaluated in this report.
Costs,
IKR/ha
Establishment
Field establishment 10,000
Seed costs 5,000
Fertiliser at sowing 3,500
Fertiliser two years from sowing
(materials and application) 5,500
Total costs of establishment 24,000
Costs in years of production
Fertiliser
(materials and application) 2,750
Cutting and field drying 4,000
Yearly costs/ha 6,750
Cost, IKR/ kg DM
Harvested Harvested
Yield level 4 years 8 years
Normal (3 t/ha) 4.25 3.71
High (4 t/ha) 3.19 2.78
The results show the importance of developing cultivation and harvesting techniques
such that good yields can be obtained over an extended period of years.
20
Other costs not accounted for:
9 Capital costs
9 Fencing
Cost of electric fencing is at present around 140,000 IKR/ha (Handbók
bænda 2001). For example, fencing off an area of 1000 ha (25m × 40m)
would cost around 2000 kr/ha.
9 Lease of land, including land maintenance, property tax and insurance.
5.2. Grass
Average cost of hay per kg DM has been estimated by the Agricultural Economics
Institute of Iceland (2003a). The calculations include all cost elements, including
baling. Factors such as depreciation of investments may be overestimated. The costs
refer to high quality hay as forage and utilisable yield is assumed to be 3.85 t DM/ha.
Much higher DM yields can be expected from fields where the aim is to produce
biomass when no special qualities are sought. The cost has been recalculated for 7 t
DM/ha for hay bales and wrapped silage bales as 11.47 and 12.40 IKR/kg DM
respectively (Jónas Bjarnason personal comm.). Grass cut late in the season has
relatively high dry matter percentage and this would reduce some elements of the
cost. The baling cost would probably also be lower than in conventional farming since
the equipment is used more efficiently. If the herbage is intended for biomass
production it would be possible to economise on the use of fertiliser. This would,
however, require some experimentation.
The production of grass as biomass would differ from farming operations in several
respects so that the whole cost model would have to be revised. Cultivation of
species especially suited for biomass production, such as canary reed grass, is also
likely to increase the efficiency. Left-over hay-bales are a source of biomass of
special interest and so is herbage from set aside hayfields that would be available at
a much lower cost than presented above.
5.3. Barley
The Agricultural Economics Institute (1998) calculated the cost of barley production
in Iceland. The costs presented here have been adjusted to present day values and
current prices offered by contractors in the field. It is assumed that both the grain and
straw are of value for biomass production. Costs at two different yield levels are
considered, 6 or 8 t/ha of total biomass.
Grain
3 t/ha 4 t/ha
Soil cultivation and sowing, IKR/ha 18,000 18,000
Seed, IKR/ha 10,000 10,000
Fertiliser IKR/ha, 12,000 12,000
Harvest, IKR/ha 10,000 10,000
Total costs for barley grain, IKR/ha 50,000 50,000
Price, IKR/kg DM 16.67 12.50
Baling of straw, IKR/ha 8,700 11,600
Total costs, IKR/ha 58,700 61,600
Price, IKR/kg DM 9.78 7.70
21
These figures do not include costs of fungicides and herbicides. This is a growing
problem as barley cultivation becomes more extensive in the country and can involve
considerable costs, especially where cultivation is carried out for a long time in the
same fields. We don’t assume that the grain will be delivered dry from the farmer.
Wet grain is commonly stored in large bales at some additional cost.
Currently, the grain has to carry all these costs except for the baling of straw. Small
amounts of the straw have a market value of 5-7 IKR/kg DM, based on the quality of
the product. If all the biomass from the barley cultivation, i.e. both the grain and the
straw, can be utilised in the fermentation process the average costs for 6 and 8 t/ha
of biomass would then be 9.78 and 7.70 IKR/kg DM respectively.
5.4. Summary of cost analyses
The three analyses of cost of biomass from lupine, grass and barley are carried out
on different grounds so that the results can not be compared directly. The analysis is
most complete for barley with straw. In order to make the cost of lupine comparable
the cost of collecting the biomass, baling or otherwise, must be added. The cost of
having to wait four years for the first harvest must also be taken into account. The
cost of grass production is again analysed in a different way. If intended for biomass
production it will, in most cases, cost less than barley with straw, especially if
available from set aside fields or as left over bales.
6. Conclusions
The analyses carried out in this study show that there are several options available
for procurement of biomass in Iceland. Most attention is, in this report, given to the
Nootka lupine, grass and barley. Estimates of their feasibility depend to a large
extent on the assumptions that can be made. The most important factor is the DM
yields that can be obtained from each hectare of land.
The Nootka lupine has, so far, not been used for continuous production of any kind
except seed harvest and experimental results of sustainable biomass production are
very limited. It is particularly well suited for sandy areas that are presently nonproductive
and the cultivation could in some cases be included in a program of land
reclamation. Fertilisation with phosphorus and sulphur is in some cases required and,
in a longer perspective, fertilisation with other nutrients would also be required. The
cost of cultivation, cutting and wilting of the crop was estimated for four scenarios of
yield and longevity of the lupine in the field. The estimates range from 2.78 to 4.25
IKR/kg DM. The range of these estimates is an indication of the need to obtain more
reliable results on lupine cultivation and harvest.
Fairly good experience and experimental evidence is available on the yield that can
be expected from grass and barley fields, indicating that grass in particular could
probably be an economic source of biomass. Research, specially designed for the
production of biomass, is though needed. Late cut grass contains more cell wall
material, although less lignified, than the lupine. Set aside hay fields and left over
bales are an economic but limited source of biomass that would be a valuable
addition to any other source of biomass.
22
7. References
Agricultural Economics Institute of Iceland (1998). Hagkvæmni kornræktar á Íslandi ásamt
samantekt um stuðning við kornrækt í þekktum kornræktarlöndum [The economics of barley
cultivation in Iceland and summary of official subsidies of barley grain production in the
neighbouring countries]. http://www.hag.is/kornsk.pdf.
Agricultural Economics Institute of Iceland (2003a). Samantekt á áætluðum beinum kostnaði
við heyframleiðslu sumarið 2003 [Estimates of direct costs of hay production summer 2003].
http://www.hag.is/ pdf/01heykostnadur2003.pdf.
Agricultural Economics Institute of Iceland (2003b). Samantekt um áætlaðan kostnað við
rúllubagga og hefðbundna bagga [Estimates of costs of production of round silage bales and
conventional hay bales]. http://www.hag.is/ pdf/02heykostnadur2003.pdf.
Björnsson, H. (1987). Binding of solar energy in agriculture and its utilization (In Icelandic).
Náttúrufræðingurinn 57: 145-155.
Björnsson, H. and Dalmannsdóttir, S. (2004). Yield potential of Nootka lupin. In: Wild and
Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles. Proceedings of the Xth International Lupin
Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19-24 June 2002, in press.
Björnsson, H., Sveinbjörnsson, J. and Hermannsson, J. (2002). Þroski og fóðurgildi korns
[Maturity and feeding value of grain]. Ráðunautafundur 2002, 93-104.
Egner H, Riehm H & Domingo W R 1960. Untersuchungen über die chemische Bodenanalyse
als Grundlage für die Beurteilung des Nährstoffzustandes der Böden. II Chemische
Extraktionsmethoden zur Phosphor und Kalium Bestimmung. Kungl. Lantbrukshögskolans
Annaler 26: 199-215 (German).
Handbók bænda (2001). Bændasamtök Íslands.
Helgadóttir, Á., Pálmason, F. and Björnsson, H. (1977). The effect of sulphur fertilization on
hay yield and its influence on sulphur content of grass (In Icelandic, English Summary).
Journal of Agricultural Research in Iceland 9,2: 3-21.
Helgadóttir, Á. and Hermannsson, J. (2003). Verðmæti ræktunarlands [Value of land for
cultivation]. Ráðunautafundur 2003: 12-16.
Hermannsson, J. (2001). Ræktunarbelti á Íslandi [Growth Zones in Iceland]. Handbók bænda
51: 21-23.
Kamm, B. and Kamm, M. (2004). Biorefinery – Systems. Chem. Biochem. Eng. Q. 18 (1): 1-6.
Landström, S. (2000). Rörflenodling – uthållig produktion och ekonomi.
http://www.sekon.slu.se/ ?PLO/ArvidsjaurHT100/RTkorttext.doc
Magnússon, B. and Sigurðsson, B.D. (1995). Protein, mineral and fiber content of Nootka
lupine. (In Icelandic). In: B. Magnússon (ed.). Biological Studies of Nootka Lupine (Lupinus
nootkatensis) in Iceland. Growth, Seed Set, Chemical Content and Effect of Cutting. RALA
Report 178, pp. 44-65.
Magnússon, B., Sigurðsson, B.D., Magnússon, S.H. and Baldursson, S. (1995). Growth and
yield of Nootka lupine (In Icelandic). In: B. Magnússon (ed.). Biological Studies of Nootka
Lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis) in Iceland. Growth, Seed Set, Chemical Content and Effect of
Cutting. RALA Report 178, pp. 9-27.
Magnússon, B., Magnússon, S.H. and Sigurðsson, B.D. (2001). Vegetation Succession in
Areas Colonized by the Introduced Nootka Lupin (Lupinus nootkatensis) in Iceland (In
Icelandic). RALA Report 207. 100 pp
Metúsalemsson, S. and Grétarsson, E. (2003). Nytjaland – Gróðurflokkun [Land use –
Vegetation classes]. Ráðunautafundur 2003: 260-263.
RALA Report 124. The Agricultural Research Institute, Reykjavík, 1987.
RALA Report 208. The Agricultural Research Institute, Reykjavík, 2001.
23
Sigurðsson, B.D., Magnússon, B. and Magnússon, S.H. (1995). Regrowth of Nootka lupine
after cutting (In Icelandic). In: B. Magnússon (ed.). Biological Studies of Nootka Lupine
(Lupinus nootkatensis) in Iceland. Growth, Seed Set, Chemical Content and Effect of Cutting.
RALA Report 178, pp. 28-37.
Tuveson, M. (1997). Vallväxter till fastbränsle och biogas. Fakta Mark/Växter 12.
Van Soest, P.J. (1967). Development of a comprehensive system of feed analyses and its
application to forages. Journal of Animal Science 26: 119-128.
Þórsson, J. and Guðmundsson, Ó. (1993). Fóðrun á alaskalúpínu [Feeding with the Nootka
lupine]. In: Ráðunautafundur 1993: 295-306.
Þórsson, J. and Hlíðberg, K. 1997. Alkaloids in Nootka lupine, Lupinus nootkatensis (in
Icelandic). Búvísindi 11/97: 75-89.