Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite

Techno-economic assessment of corn stover for hybrid bioenergy

T
production: A sustainable approach
Subhash Paula,∗∗, Animesh Duttaa,∗, Mahendra Thimmanagarib, Fantahun Defershaa
a
School of Engineering, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd E, Guelph, Ontario, N1G2W1, Canada
b
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, 1 Stone Road W, Guelph, ON, N1G 4Y2 Canada

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Corn stover (CS) contains high moisture in the fall and farmers keep it unharvested until next
Bioenergy spring for its natural drying. CS contains 70% more carbon than other grain crop residues.
Bio-carbon Farmers traditionally use a portion of CS for livestock bedding and cattle feed but the rest is kept
Hydrothermal unharvested. Potential soil erosion, carbon sequestration, and nutrient removal concerns might
Corn stover
be considered before CS harvesting. Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of wet biomass can
Greenhouse gas
Anaerobic digestion
produce energy dense solid bio-carbon. Hydrothermal process water (HTPW) can produce energy
and recover nutrient in anaerobic digestion (AD). This study reported the results of various ex-
periments performed on non-rooted fall harvested CS of an Ontario farm. Ontario CS was finally
assessed for techno-economic and environmental aspects. This research showed 78% energy and
a portion on nutrients as liquid bio-fertilizer of fall harvested CS are recoverable. Corn roots with
6–10 cm stalks, cobs and husks can be kept in the soil to recover soil organic matter (SOM) and
protection of soil erosion. The process indicates the sustainable CS harvesting in the fall with
possibility to reduce 75% of existing harvesting cost and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission.

1. Introduction

The bio-economy of Canada enhances economic opportunity to farmers and processors to manufacture bio-based products as new
products for additional markets. Farmers now need to change new uses of crop residues and manure as a resource, which were
considered “waste” in the past. Biomass conversion into heat and power is the replacement of coal, petroleum and nuclear fuel. In
case of agriculture, bioenergy can be produced as biogas from anaerobic digestion (AD) of manure and crop residues. Livestock
manure, crop residues and agri-food processing wastes are the main feedstocks for AD to produce biogas [1]. Biogas can produce heat
and power from its combustion. The new provincial policies permits to sell produced electricity from biogas to local utilities and
upgraded bio-methane to natural gas companies or use as renewable natural gas (RNG) as a vehicle fuel.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be reduced by producing renewable fuels from crop residues, food wastes and manures
because they are carbon neutral based on the Canada's Renewable Fuels Strategy. The strategy can support the growth of domestic
biofuels industry along with commercialization of new technologies to produce biofuels. Rural communities and agricultural pro-
ducers will get new market opportunities [1]. Increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is a threat of climate change, which
can be reduced and offset of fossil fuel combusted CO2 emission. Biofuels are renewable energy, which can be produced from biomass

∗
Corresponding author.
∗∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Paul), [email protected] (A. Dutta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100408
Received 9 May 2018; Received in revised form 22 January 2019; Accepted 30 January 2019
Available online 01 February 2019
2214-157X/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

and can reduce atmospheric CO2. It is an important strategy for the reduction of global atmospheric CO2 as the GHG reduction.
The aboveground material of the corn plant left in soil after its grain harvest is known as corn stover (CS), which is a primary
biomass source [2,3]. It is referred to an agricultural waste or “trash” for its minimal economic value [4]. Although a large amount of
CS is produced in Canada, for traditional practices it is not being collected like other crop residue [5].

1.1. Sustainable corn stover removal

CS is a potential biomass to produce bioenergy that could reduce foreign oil dependency. USA is producing about 196–254 Mt of
CS annually of which 30% is safely collectable while the rest is kept in the field for soil organic carbon (SOC) recovery along with
protection of water and wind erosion [5,6]. In the formation of soil organic matter (SOM), a portion of crop residues keeping in the
farms is important. It also protects wind shear erosion of soil from rain drops and water runoff. The average CS production in North
America is about 25 t ha-1 and keep 3 t ha-1 (12%) unharvested in the farm can protect water and soil erosion. The greater value of
SOC means to keep greater C and N sequestration in the soil. Research on corn production also indicated that CS removal from row or
complete removal of residue from farm could increase grain yield [7,8]. Clapp et al. [9] did continuous research for 13 years about
SOC in 0–15 cm depth of soil for CS removed and CS kept in the field and found no difference for tilling annually by mouldboard or
chisel plow. On the other hand, for coverage of crop residue, land becomes excessive wet and cold, poor seed placement and poor
weed controlling condition. As a result the next crop yield is decreased [7] but it protects soil erosion and conserves soil water.
Reicosky et al. [10] carried out a 30 years’ research about conserving aboveground CS with mouldboard plowing and removing CS
with silage harvester and mouldboard plowing where they found no measurable difference of soil SOC between two methods of
cultivation.
Below ground (root stored) carbon measurement is difficult but root debris contribute more C to SOM [11]. Unharvested CS
provides 5.04 to 5.27 t ha-1 y-1 C into soil whereas; aboveground CS provides 2.66 to 2.93 t ha-1 y-1 C into soil [5]. About 11% of
aboveground and 37% of root C retains as SOM [12]. Therefore aboveground residue of corn plants contribute less C to SOC than root
although aboveground total dry materials is 5.5 times more than root dry materials [13]. On the other hand only one third of CS
derived C in soil remain after 1 year [14]. CS contains 14–18.9% lignin, 37.5–40% cellulose, 26.1–31% hemicellulose and 0.4–1%
nitrogen in dry basis [15,16]. The rest might be of fixed carbon and alkali metals.
Blanco and Lal [17] studied the effect of CS removal and SOM reduction for continuous four years and found that 100% CS
removal reduced 0.82 t ha-1 total N in case of silt loam soil but it had no effect in case of clay loam soil in the depth of 0–15 cm from
the surface. Overall consideration for this study is up to 25% CS removal is safe and to know the impact of more than 25% CS removal
required further long term research. In Canada (Quebec) about 8 kg t-1 N, 1.31 kg t-1 of P and 12.03 kg t-1 of K in dry basis are removed
for CS harvest [18]. Laird and Chang [19] studied on the impact of aboveground crop residue removal on SOM for 19 years (12 years
for corn and 7 years for soybean) and found that up to 15 cm depths from soil surface, farms after residue removal contained 12% less
SOC, 12.6% less total N, 7.3% less cation exchange capacity and 12.3% less total respiration, respectively compared to farms with
residue in silt loam soil. These impacts were observed minimal for the soil samples of 15–30 cm depth. Removal of CS reduces GHG
emission especially, CO2 and N2O and also reduces soil C and N [20]. Minor soil degradation caused for CS harvesting is recoverable
by implementing the best management practices. CS (roots, stalks and leaves) contains at least 1.7 times more C than other cereal
crops residues [21]. Although most of the research have been focused on aboveground CS, but the corn root is important for C input
in soil. Aboveground CS contains high N, which can leach NO3- as a cause of soil acidity. It also generates N2O, a strong GHG of more
than 300 times CO2e global worming potential (GWP) as well as CH4 another GHG of 21 times CO2e GWP [16].
Long term research on the effect of crop residue removal on Canadian soils is limited [22]. It is important to know to keep
minimum portion of crop residue in farms before harvest it for energy industry. This address is even more important before address to
use of agricultural biomass for the emerging bioenergy industry is being promoted to aware serious feedstock shortcoming. Therefore
knowledge about residue removal impact on soil quality is important especially in commercial scale [23]. In the case of silage corn
harvest most of the aboveground CS is removed but for grain CS harvest, a portion of CS (10% of available CS is removed at current
practice for animal feed and bedding) is removed in Canada.

1.2. Sustainable corn stover harvest cost

To cover fixed and variable costs, the break-even point (BEP) for crop residues harvesting is important. In Ontario, BEP for CS is
57–87 $ t-1 [23] including nutrient cost. The nutrient cost can be as high as 22.73 to 34.09 $ t-1 [18,24]. At least 20–30% of produced
biomass is needed to be harvested for an economical harvesting operation [25]. Although Canada is producing 10.7 Mt y -1 of CS
including 62% in Ontario (6.6 Mt y -1) but its 30% is the suggested amount, which is about 2 Mt y -1 in Ontario [16,26]. In all
provinces of Canada and the northern states of USA, corn is harvested during the end of October to November when CS contains more
than 30% moisture [27]. A limited (about 10%) amount of CS is traditionally harvested in the spring to use it for animal bedding and
feed. Recently cellulosic ethanol and sugar plants are collecting a limited amount of CS with less than 15% moisture. It is impossible
to reach this low moisture by natural sun drying in the fall [3] and therefore as an alternative of fall harvesting, it is harvested in the
spring with 25–30% dry matter loss [28].
Limited research is available for Ontario fall time wet CS harvesting with single pass forage chopper, wagon collection and storage
system for cost determination. As an example, corn stalk moisture during a typical grain harvesting period (fall) is 56%–69% for the
whole aboveground stalk. A single-pass corn and CS harvester can collect cob, husk and the entire stalk (100%) of the available CS
with 48%–64% moisture [29]. Recently a portion of CS is being considered to be collected for cellulosic ethanol and sugar production

2
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

(since 2014 in Ontario) where importance is given to collect the upper portion of the plant considering it as “waste” with paying only
nutrient recovery cost to Ontario farmers. CS harvesting cost is considered as the raw materials collection of ethanol and sugar plants
at the plant gate delivery basis. In Ontario and other corn growing provinces of Canada, CS is dried down in the field, which is
considerably limited in the fall due to prevailing wet and cold climate. Just after harvesting of grain by a combine, CS contains excess
moisture and it is left on the ground unharvested. To collect dry CS, it is harvested in the next spring. The unharvested CS also
protects soil erosion for covering soil in winter but CS yield is reduced (average 21%) for its natural degradation [30]. For short day
length and low ambient temperature, CS drying is slowed down in the fall. A very short CS harvesting time is available between grain
harvest and snow fall starting. Therefore, if high moisture contained CS is harvested in the fall, soil is mixed with it during shredding
and raking operation (at present system) and its storage becomes costly. For this reason farmers of Ontario traditionally harvest
limited amount of naturally sun dried CS in the spring to use it in bedding and feed purposes. If wet clean CS is harvested in the fall
then it can be converted into other useable bio-products. Then the fall harvested clean CS can be valuable feed stocks for bio-
refineries.
Harvesting of wet CS in the fall eliminates the need of field sun drying time and when it is harvested soon after combine operation,
eliminates the raking operation and finally reduces harvesting cost. This technology is similar to the forage harvesting technology,
which can eliminates windrowing, baling, bale gathering, staging, loading and unloading operations with limited chance of soil
contamination [3]. The three-pass current wet CS harvesting system is the combination of grain harvesting, shredding and chopping
and baling, which creates three times soil compaction. A modified shredding and merging of stalk and leaves device could be
integrated into the corn head of the combine. The crop unit of a combine further could be modified to chop and blow the CS fraction
into a container, which can be pulled beside the grain harvester. The system can work as a single-pass system and this system can
reduce 26.5% (30.8 $ t-1 instead of 41.9 $ t-1 dry CS) of CS harvesting cost compared to conventional system [3]. It will also reduce
soil compaction of the corn farm.
Sugar and ethanol plants charge two penalties for more than 5% ash (db) and 35% (wb) moisture content to reduce their pre-
treatment cost, which are two major constrains against farmers’ benefit. For keeping CS on the ground and moving all types of
harvesting equipment, soil compaction occurs and soil is mixed with CS. For that reason, in a South Dakota farm of USA contained
23.3% (db) ash in its harvested round baled CS [31]. Ontario CS sometimes may contain 15%–20% (db) ash, which is loss for farmers.
As an example, a typical database “Excerpt Canmet Agricultural Biomass Database” mentioned that two samples of CS contained
14.30% (db) and 9.95% (db) ash respectively, in Ontario [16]. Both sugar and ethanol industries only use hemicellulose and cellulose
portion of the CS but its lignin and nutrients are considered as waste. Lignin is the potential source of bio-carbon (alternative of coal).
Research on Ontario CS is very limited to recovery of both energy and nutrients, which in most of the cases is considered as waste. But
both energy and nutrients of CS can be recovered as solid bio-fuel (bio-carbon) in hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) and its process
water in AD can produce biogas and liquid bio-fertilizer (digestate of AD).
In this research, use of CS is emphasised to recover both energy and nutrients. HTC produced bio-carbon is comparable to coal. Its
process water contains organics with carbon and nutrients, which can be used in AD to produce biogas and its digestate can be used as
bio-fertilizer. For this process, CS does not need to dry up and it can be harvested directly with grain harvesting time (fall) by the
silage harvesting machine and can be stored at the farm side storage. Both HTC and AD facilities can be installed near the farm to
produce bio-carbon and biogas. AD liquid digestate can be applied to the same farms, which will return back as a portion of SOC and
SOM (nutrients).
At present Ontario CS pricing is determined based on the cost of harvesting, CS transportation to ethanol/sugar industries, storage
and replacement of nutrients into soil. This research will assess the new CS pricing at the farm gate to consider it as zero waste with
optimum renewable hybrid bioenergy production with the scope of reduction of GHG emission, and reduction of cost for dockage
penalty for excess ash and moisture content of CS. To the best of our knowledge any farm gate techno-economic assessment research
for the fall time single pass wet CS harvesting and conversion into bio-carbon, biogas and bio-fertilizer has not yet been carried out by
any other researcher. Research in context of farm gate clean fall time CS harvesting and conversion into bioenergy and bio-fertilizer
and its application into same farm in a closed loop system is also not available.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Fall harvested corn stover yield

Complete corn plant sample was manually harvested from a Woodstock farm (Latitude: 43.153836; Longitude: -80.785189) of
Ontario, Canada during fall 2015 harvesting time (05 November 2015). Corn plants were cut off at 6–10 cm above the ground. Row to
row distances and plant to plant distances were measured by a measuring tape. Harvested plants were collected in large sized plastic
bags so that no soil could mix with it. Plant height and spacing were measured from different places of the farm. Harvested plants
were brought into Bio-renewable and Innovation Laboratory of the University of Guelph, Ontario. Immediately corn ears were
separated from collected plants, then tassels and leaves were cut off from plants and weighted. Husks and kernels (grain) were
separated from cobs and weighted. Then these components were separately dried up at 103oC ± 2oC for 24 h. They were further dried
up for another additional 48 h (total 72 h) to follow ASABE standards, 2008 [32] to find out dry matter and moisture content. The
dried sample was stored for laboratory experiments in zip lock plastic bags. The grain and aboveground CS yield were determined and
the farm yield was determined for fall 2015. In this paper all experimental results are mentioned for dry CS. Leaves, stalk and tassels
were considered as CS for the sustainable farm gate CS harvesting.

3
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Table 1
Field operations in chronological order for three conventional corn stover harvesting methods.
Operation in order Wet CS harvesting and baled (fall Dry CS harvesting and baled (spring Wet CS chopped and wagon collection (fall
harvesting) harvesting) harvesting)

1 Shredding Shredding Shredding and merging

2 Raking into windrow Drying (sun drying) –
3 Wilting Raking into windrow Wilting
4 Bale Bale Chopping-windrowing
5 Gathering and bale loading Gathering and bale loading Dumping into wagon
6 Transport Transport Truck filling and transport
7 Unloading, wrapping and storing Unloading, wrapping and storing Ensiling for storage

2.2. Harvesting index (HI)

The ratio of grain yield (G) and G plus aboveground vegetative residue (V) i.e. total above ground corn plant is called harvest
index (HI) [23]. The HI of hundred samples of ten plants was determined in the laboratory. Grain yield was determined by the
standard 1000 kernels weighing method.

HI = {G/(G + V)} (1)

V = {G/(1-HI)/HI} (2)

2.3. Three conventional corn stover harvesting methods

Field operations for a) wet CS harvesting and baled system b) dry CS harvesting and baled system and c) wet chopped CS and
forage wagon system were considered to determine harvesting costs from published literature. In case of chopped and wagon system,
immediately after grain harvesting by a combine, CS is shredded, windrowed and chopped by a forage chopper and the copped
material is collected in the side dumping wagon. The chopped CS is finally dumped into known volume trucks. On the other hand,
both wet and dry harvested and baled methods’ operational orders are mostly the same. Only wet harvesting and baled method is
carried out just after harvesting of grain in the fall but dry harvesting and baled method is carried out in the spring when after
shredding, CS is kept in the land for several days to dry up. The orders of field operations of CS harvesting in these three methods are
shown in chronological order in Table 1.

2.4. Spring time harvesting of corn stover

In Canada mostly the spring harvesting CS is being practised for reducing moisture content. Corn grain is mostly harvested during
the fall but CS is kept in the farm where it is dried up in the spring and it is harvested at the end of May to early June. A corn grower
cum harvesting machine (chopper, rake, windrower and baler) owner from the county of Alma near Elora (latitude: 43.683715;
longitude: -80.430543), Ontario was selected to collect CS harvesting and storage related data for both spring and fall harvesting. A
series of machine such as chopper, rake, windrower and baler were used for harvesting CS. Data about CS production, harvesting and
storage loss, cost of harvesting and storage was collected. The current CS harvesting system follows several steps after grain har-
vesting by a combine. A shredder is used to shred corn stalk then it is kept for several days for sun drying, then raking machine is used
to line it up into a windrow, the baler is used to make into bales (round or square). Then bales are gathered, loaded into a truck and
transported to storage, unloaded and stored in the storage (open or structured). Although shredding and windrowing is possible
combined, but for slow rate of sun drying it is carried out separately [3].

2.5. Simulation for fall time harvesting of corn stover

An experimental single pass grain and CS harvesting study was carried out by Hoskinson et al. [33] for low cut fall harvesting corn
grain and CS as shown in Fig. 1. This harvesting system consisted of a combine (John Deere 9750 STS), a 6-row header (John Deere
653A row crop header) with a corn reel (prototype), and a standard chopper at the rear (John Deere). A similar single pass grain
harvesting combine and CS harvesting system is considered for this research. In Fig. 1 windrowing is not included (for this reason
some leaves are left on the ground) and approximately 10 cm (4 inch) stem is left with root in the field. But adding forage chopper
and wagon dumping system would collect all the leaves, which is shown in Fig. 2. A simulation on CS fall harvesting was carried out
to estimate potential CS harvest in the fall, which can be achieved by using a combine equipped with the header of a forage harvester
and lowering at the minimum height of the forage header (closer to the ground). In this system the whole CS can be harvested [30].
CS yield, its nutrients, energy and ash content were estimated from this simulation. Harvesting cost for the equipped single pass
system [3] was estimated. Storage cost of chopped CS in wagon was estimated. The process diagram about CS harvesting operations
for this research is shown in Fig. 2, which has been considered with some changes from Ref. [3].

4
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Fig. 1. A single pass corn stover harvest and collection system (prototype: Hoskinson et al. [33]).

Fig. 2. Process diagram of a single pass combined corn grain and stover harvesting mechanism in the fall (modified from Shinners et al. [3]).

2.6. Proximate, ultimate and nutrients analysis of corn stover

Fall harvested CS was collected from a Woodstock farm for laboratory analysis. Samples were dried up in a muffle furnace
(Thermo Scientific - F48055-66, Waltham, MA) at 103oC ± 2⁰C for 24 h for moisture content determination following the ASTM
(ASTM-E871) standards. Dried samples were then ground by ball mill (RETSCH PM 100 model), sieved in Sieve shaker (RETSCH AS
200) at < 500 μm for all lab experiments. Volatile matter of dried sample was determined according to the ASTM standard (ASTM-
E872). Ash content was determined according to the ASTM-E1755 standard, which was the residue mass after dry oxidation at
575 ± 25oC for 5 h in the same muffle furnace. Calorific value of dried ground sample was determined in high heating value (HHV)
form in Bomb calorimeter IKA C200 after. Ultimate analysis such as carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), sulfur (S) and oxygen (O)
was determined by CHNSO analyzer of Thermo Scientific FLASH 2000 organic elemental analyzer. Dried ground sample of < 50 μm
was mixed in deionized water to make 5% total solid (TS) containing mixture for AD and it was further diluted 100 times for rest of
the elemental analysis for the limitation of used kits. Sodium (Na), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) and Calcium (Ca) were de-
termined by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) analyzer of Agricultural and Food Laboratory, University of Guelph. Nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P) and sulfur (S) was determined by using HACH kits TNT 880, TNT843 and TNT 864, respectively. HACH DRB 200
block digester and HACH DR 5000 spectrophotometer were used.

2.7. Simulation for bio-carbon, biogas and nutrient recovery

High moisture fall harvested above ground CS was considered to be hydrothermally carbonized at 240oC for 30 min (considering

5
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

as optimum condition) according to Paul et al. [34] and solid was separated from liquid by using filter paper. The solid is known as
HTC (bio-carbon) and liquid is known as hydrothermal process water (HTPW). High heating value of dry ground CS and HTC were
determined by the same bomb calorimeter. HTPW was used for AD in biochemical methane potential (BMP) bottle at 36oC ± 1oC in
an incubator following the AD experimental method of Paul et al. [34]. Biogas was measured for 30 days and total production and
methane composition was determined by gas chromatography (GC) following the method of Paul et al. [34].

2.8. Cost calculation for corn stover harvesting and storage

To assess the feasibility of CS as the feed stock of bioenergy production plant, farmers cum machinery investors could use their
optimum machine hours to harvest after overcoming break-even point [23]. A study was conducted for CS harvesting both in fall and
spring in southern Ontario including Elora country (latitude: 43.683715; longitude: -80.430543) in 2014 by Marchand Lynn [35].
Harvesting unit costs for individual machinery and storage were considered per tonne of dry CS harvesting basis.
n
TC = ∑ Ma + L+ S+ P
a=1 (3)

where,

TC = Total cost of a tonne dry CS removal

Ma = cost of a tonne dry CS for a machine operation (a = 1, 2, 3, …,n) above break even operation
L = logistic cost of a tonne dry CS to deliver it at 100 km distance by truck.
S = cost of a tonne dry CS for storage after harvesting in fall
P = penalize cost of a tonne dry CS (excess ash and moisture)

We studied county of Alma (latitude: 43.730900; longitude: -80.503287) beside Elora, Ontario with a grower cum CS harvesting
machinery owner (harvested own farms and surroundings farms exceeding break-even operation of each machine) and collected CS
costing data from him. This costing data along with the reported and other published data was compiled to assess the farm level CS
harvesting and storage cost determination. All of these data was categorized for per tonne of bone dry CS (0% moisture) harvesting
for i) spring harvesting as round bales ii) fall harvesting as round bales and iii) fall harvesting in chopped and wagon loaded method
shown in Table 1. Although square baling machine is another option, in the studied area round baling is in operation. For all of these
three ways, CS harvesting and storage cost was estimated for structured storage and open space (prevailing farm side) storage system.
Nutrient replacement and penalized cost for excess ash and moisture were included according to Ref. [36]. Finally the cost of single
pass fall CS harvesting (with grain harvesting) and its storage cost both in structured storage and open space farm side storage were
determined for use at the farm level biofuel and liquid bio-fertilizer production and use. This system does not currently exist but it is
possible to use CS in bio-carbon and biogas production at farm areas. Machinery operational cost and CS storage cost were estimated
by using the existing cost system [35]. Previous researchers considered about 30% CS removal. In single pass fall time CS harvesting
efficiency would increase and finally per tonne CS harvesting cost would decrease.

2.9. Estimation of GHG reduction

Total Green House gases (GHGs) emission reduction was estimated based on available research data on C and N contents of CS
emitted as CO2, CH4 and N2O-N from CS non-removal fields in Ontario, Canada. These values were adjusted to the research data for
absence of CO2, CH4 and N2O-N gases due to removal of CS during harvesting time. The global warming potential (GWP) index of
CO2, CH4 and N2O of 100 years’ life span were 1, 28, and 265, respectively [37]. Production of CH4 in AD can eliminate natural gas
consumption and production of Bio-carbon can remove coal combustion. In addition, elimination of CO2 emission from gasoline
powered truck was estimated for non-transport of CS to 100 Km distances. These three emissions were accumulated to estimate the
total GHG emission reduction. Initially this result was estimated for present collected sample and after it was calculated for Ontario
and Canada.
GHGs Emission Conversion Factors [37,38].

i) CO2 emission from 1 kg non-removed dry CS

Percent of carbon becomes CO2 x C present in 1 kg dry CS x (44/12) x GWP of CO2

ii) N2O emission from 1 kg non-removed dry CS

Percent of nitrogen becomes N2O x N present in 1 kg dry CS x (44/28) x GWP of N2O

iii) CH4 emission from 1 kg non-removed dry CS

CH4 produced in m3 from 1 kg dry CS x specific density of CH4 0.555 kg m-3 x GWP of CH4

6
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

iv) Gasoline savings for 1 kg non-transport CS to the sugar/ethanol plant

(Gasoline required for 100 × 2 km distance of a truck in gallon x 8.887 × 10-3 tonnes CO2 per gallon of gasoline)/weight of dry
CS of a truck in kg.

v) CO2 emission savings for substitution of coal by bio-carbon from 1 kg dry CS

{The specific CO2 emission of bituminous coal (0.37/3600) x 1000 kg CO2e/MJ energy} x (HHV of bio-carbon in MJ/kg) x
(fraction of 1 kg of dry CS converted into bio-carbon).

vi) Natural gas emission savings for use of bio-methane produced from 1 kg dry CS

CH4 produced from 1 kg dry CS in m3 x 1.924 kg m-3 CO2 of natural gas.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Grain and corn stover yield and sustainability

Statistics Canada [26] reported that Southern Ontario (counties of Chatham-Kent, Hamilton, Oxford, Niagara, Haldimand-Nor-
folk, Lambton, Brant, Elgin, Middlesex and Essex) corn yields averaged 10610 kg ha-1 in 2014, 10567 kg ha-1 in 2013 and 5 years'
(2010–2014) averaged 9851 kg ha-1. CS production would be the same as grain production when grain and CS ratio is 1:1 or harvest
index (HI) is 0.5 in Ontario [4]. For these periods, Ontario's estimated CS yield was also same as grain yield. But the samples of corn
plants for this research were collected from a high yielding grain corn farm. Row spacing, plant to plant distance, number of cobs per
plant were measured and counted for determining both grain and CS yield. One thousand kernels of every 10 plants were separately
weighted to estimate grain yield. For this selected farm grain, CS and root dry materials were estimated, which is shown in Fig. 3.
Individual CS composition was also estimated in dry basis. Leaving CS behind a combine harvester and separating husks and cobs
spread in the field are normal harvesting practices. This farm yielded 14880 kg ha-1 of dry grain, 8846 kg ha-1 of CS and 8098 kg ha-1
of root dry material with left over stubble (6 cm–10 cm of lower stem). Harvest index (HI) was calculated to 0.63 whereas most of the
research in Ontario determined HI of 0.50, where grain and aboveground CS dry matter ratio is 1:1 [15,23]. Sawyer and Mallarino
[39] and Lizotte and Savoir [32] carried out same type of studies and found that grain, CS and root yield were 8545 kg ha-1,
12580 kg ha-1 and 6127 kg ha-1 and 7290 kg ha-1, 9407 kg ha-1 and 8780 kg ha-1, respectively. During the same time of grain and CS
harvesting in the fall, dry matter yield of grain and CS were found 13.0 t ha-1 and 9.2 t ha-1, respectively in a research in USA [40],
which is very close to this research result. Scientists are developing high yielding varieties of corn for more grain production. It can be
observed from Fig. 3 that yearly grain yield increasing rate from 2008 to 2015 is about 9–10% but CS yield is not increasing. On the
other hand husks and cobs composition of the total CS was increased whereas stalk and tassel composition was decreased in the
studied field. Larger sizes of ears hold larger/more kernels and that is one reason for higher yield of husk and cob dry matter. This
study shows that more than 36% of CS dry matter (including silk) was directly spread into the corn field during harvesting. On the
other hand, dry matter of root with stubble (6 cm-10 cm) during fall CS harvesting can be kept in the soil to protect soil erosion.
This research was carried out to recover both energy (bio-carbon and biogas) and nutrients from wet CS. It would have sus-
tainability to harvest complete wet CS by a combine and a forage chopper in single pass system. In the next section we will discuss the

Fig. 3. Corn stover and grain yield of standing corn plants (dry matter).
Note: Root mass was estimated from shoot to root ratio of 1.93 [13]; root moisture is same as stalk.

7
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Table 2
Proximate analysis and high heating value (HHV) of fall harvested corn stover.
Parameter name Value

Moisture content (%) wb 46.72 ± 0.11

Dry matter (%) wb 53.28 ± 0.11
Volatile matter (%) db 84.79 ± 2.23
Ash (%) db 2.34 ± 0.6
Fixed carbon (%) db 12.86 ± 2.18
HHV of dry stover (MJ kg-1) 18.13 ± 0.06
HHV of HTC (MJ kg-1) 23.01 ± 0.01
HTC mass yield (% of dry CS) 47 ± 0.02
HHV of HTC (MJ kg-1 dry CS) 10.909
Methane production (L kg-1 of dry CS) 58.16
HHV of produced Biogas (MJ kg-1 dry CS) 3.228
Total energy yield for HTC and gas (MJ kg-1 dry CS) 14.137
Energy recovered (% of raw dry CS) 77.97

nutrient removal and cost of fall wet CS harvesting. In France Balesdent and Balabane [41] found from their four-year study that the
root derived C to SOM in corn field is 1.5 times of shoots. A continuous study carried out by Bolinder et al. [13] for 15 years on silage
corn about the C inputs to the soil and found that 16–30% of root carbon contents converted into SOM. If this value is considered for
this research, then root would contribute 587 kg ha-1 to 1100 kg ha-1 of C into SOM. This research also considered about 12.2% C of
above ground CS can be retained as SOM, which would be 481 kg ha-1 C. As cob and husk dry matter is 36.57% of total CS, which
equates to 176 kg ha-1 C to SOM was already in the soil. The rest is only 305 kg ha-1 C to SOM was shortage for harvesting CS during
fall. For using AD liquid digestate as green fertilizer, C to SOM will be added to the soil, which would sustain C sequestration.

3.2. Corn stover energy recovery in hybrid system

For hydrothermal treatment of wet CS at 240⁰C for 30 min (according to the laboratory research of Paul et al. [34]) useable solid
bio-carbon and HTPW suitable for AD were produced. This HTPW was used for AD in biochemical methane potential (BMP) bottles in
an incubator at 36 ± 1⁰C for 30 days following the method of Paul et al. [34]. Both solid and gas biofuel was evaluated for per kg dry
biomass (CS), which is shown with proximate analysis in Table 2. The higher heating value (HHV) of methane is 55.5 MJ kg-1 of a
pure substance [42]. Until now researchers performed various studies to produce bio-carbon (HTC) but they did not consider the left
over liquid as an energy source. In this research, mass yield of bio-carbon was only 47% of dry biomass (CS) and the remaining 53%
of CS was considered to be present in HTPW (including loss), which had high potential to produce biogas in AD process. Although a
portion of biomass might have possibility to produce some gases during hydrothermal process, it was considered as loss and was not
counted in energy yield. AD produced biogas was evaluated for rest 53% of raw biomass. So, bioenergy produced as HTC (bio-carbon)
and biogas was evaluated for one kg of dry biomass (CS). Daily produced biogas composition such as methane and CO2 was measured
in a gas chromatography (GC) following the method of Paul et al. [34]. The average of 30 days’ methane composition was 57.70%
and CO2 was the remaining 42.30%. Ash content and HHV of dry CS (without cob and husk) was found 2.34% and 18.13 MJkg-1,
respectively. Lizotte et al. [30] studied the ash content and HHV of CS grown in different farms of eastern Canada (Quebec). They
determined these two values for different components of standing CS and found that, the dry basis overall ash content and HHV of
cobs, husks, leaves, stalk and total CS were 2.07–2.26% and 17.62–17.80 MJ kg-1, 2.53–3.20% and 17.36–17.49 MJ kg-1,
7.91–12.52% and 16.27–17.48 MJ kg-1, 4.77–6.23% and 17.56–17.69 MJ kg-1 and 4.8–7.31% and 17.26–17.47 MJ kg-1, respectively.
The cob contained the highest HHV for containing the lowest ash content. On the other hand, leaves contained the lowest HHV for its
high ash content. Soil might mix with leaves and stalks before harvesting because they fall down on the ground during combine and
other grain harvesting operations. But for harvesting manually, our research results determined 2.34% ash content and 18.13 MJ kg-1
of HHV in dry basis. For mixing soil with CS ash content was increased and decreased the HHV in existing harvesting system. In the
Kerchin region of China, HHV of corn stalk was found the highest of19.35 MJ kg-1 with 3.05% ash content in dry basis [43]. During
sampling of our research, soil did not mix with CS and we considered cobs and husks spread on the ground for SOM recovery.

3.3. Corn stover nutrient contents

Carbon and macro-nutrients such as N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg and Na and mixed soil (SiO2) concentrations in the dry CS of fall harvested
standing plants of this research and its comparison with other published research for the fall of Hoskinson et al. [33] and for the
spring of OFA [16]. Nutrient contents of harvested CS are presented in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0961953406001498 - tbl2 Fig. 4. From Figs. 3 and 4, it can be estimated that in the studied farm C, N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg and Na
production in the removable CS were 4.01 t ha-1, 85.81 kg ha-1, 13.36 kg ha-1, 23.00 kg ha-1, 46.00 kg ha-1, 74.31 kg ha-1, 28.31 kg ha-1
and 19.46 kg ha-1, respectively in dry basis. For standing plant harvesting, silica (soil mixing) would be negligible because the ash
content was only 2.34% (db). The nutrient contents of studied CS were consistent with other researches. Existing spring harvesting
dry CS contains 9.59%–14.30% ash in Ontario of which > 70% is SiO2. If silica was not mixed with CS then ash content would be
4.25% and 2.84% respectively in dry basis, which are close to this research. During combine and other machinery operations and

8
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Fig. 4. Nutrient concentration in harvested dry corn stover (dry matter).

snow melted in the farm, soil would mix with CS, which was harvested in the spring. But if fall CS harvesting in single pass with grain
harvesting by a combine would possible, there would be a limited possibility to mix soil with CS. For this reason studied standing
plant CS contained less ash (2.34%). In a South Dakota farm, round baled CS contained 23.3% ash in dry basis [31]. Ontario CS
sometimes contain 15%–20% ash in dry basis, which is a loss to farmers (11%–17% ash in dry basis was mentioned in OFA report
[16]). The 2013 Idaho National Laboratory suggested that farmers should be penalized for > 5% ash content (db) in CS and it should
be at 2.25 $ t-1 for every percent of excess ash present in more than 5% ash containing CS if they would sell it to the ethanol or sugar
industry. At present, the short-term impact of the nutrient removing in CS is the additional fertilizer cost to replace the N, P and K. But
if CS was used to produce HTC and biogas, and its digestate would apply to the corn field as liquid fertilizer, then this nutrient cost
should be eliminated. This cost is for previously removed nutrients, which would return back into the soil. In addition, for producing
bio-carbon and biogas, carbon credit may be applicable. So, there will not be any long term sustainability issues for corn production,
which is claimed by various researchers such as Karlen et al. [44].

3.4. Farm gate cost of corn stover harvesting and storing in Canada

The cost of the CS harvesting research data of various authors is shown in Fig. 6. All cost items were calculated in $ t-1 of the dry
CS basis. A study was carried out by Lizotte et al. [18], where spring time round baling CS harvesting cost was 29.04 $ t-1. In the self-
loading wagon (SLW) CS harvesting method, shredding cost was 7.72 $ t-1 and loading cost in the wagon was 29.67 $ t-1. But to store
the CS in a structured building, it was 59.44 $ t-1 for round bales and 71.85 $ t-1 for chopped material in the wagon. The overall
harvesting and storage cost for the round baler and SLW were 109.48 $ t-1 and 122.53 $ t-1, respectively. In this study, nutrient
replacement cost was not considered. In Ontario, 90% of the CS is kept unharvested and the remaining is harvested mostly for
bedding purposes. A study was conducted in a corn growing farm in Alma (beside Elora), Southern Ontario (Fig. 5) to collect cost
related data (Fig. 6). This data can be compared with another study of the same area by Marchand Lynn [35]. According to the
information collected from the farmer, the fall harvesting CS contains > 30% moisture and the spring harvesting CS contains about
6–10% moisture. All costs were converted for 0% moisture (bone dry CS), which is shown in Fig. 6.
The studied Alma (beside Elora) farmers store their CS at the side of a farm, either in plastic rain proof wrapping or net wrapping
for lowering the storage cost (Fig. 7).
In this system, the CS harvesting and storage cost for the fall and the spring are 111.39 $ t-1 and 94.29 $ t-1 of the dry CS,
respectively. This cost includes 100 km distance delivery to sugar/ethanol plant, which is 47.57 $ t-1 and 37.03 $ t-1 of dry CS,

9
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Fig. 5. Location map of the sample and data collection area of southern Ontario.

Fig. 6. Corn stover harvesting and storage cost per tonne in Ontario ($ t-1 of dry CS).

respectively. If the CS could be used within farm area for bio-carbon and biogas production, this transportation cost would be
eliminated. On the other hand for removing the CS, Ontario farmers would receive nutrient replacement cost for extra fertilizer use in
the soil, which is 11.60 $ t-1 of dry CS harvest [35]. If the CS could be used in HTC and its HTPW in AD and its digestate could be
applied in the same farm, then the CS removing nutrient would recover and this nutrient replacement cost would be eliminated. For
harvesting CS in the spring, soil is mixed with it and its ash content is increased. A typical farm's CS contained 14.30% ash (db) in
Ontario [16]. Fall harvesting CS contains high moisture (46.72% (wb) in this research), which is a loss for farmers if they deliver it to

10
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Fig. 7. Farm side open storage system of wrapped bale and chopped stacked corn stover.

sugar/ethanol plants. In the USA, farmers deliver CS for biofuel production. Then their CS ash is more than 5% they have to pay 2.25
$ t-1 for every percent of excess ash. In the same way, CS with more than 34% moisture is penalized by 5 $ t-1 up to 50% moisture and
CS of more than 50% moisture is rejected [36]. Therefore, from an economic point of view, use of CS in the hydrothermal process for
bio-carbon production and its use of HTPW in AD for biogas production, can recover both energy and nutrients. In this method
farmer's CS harvesting cost can be reduced for farm gate use. If Ontario CS contains 15% ash (db) and > 34% moisture (wb), then
according to Marchand Lynn [35], the fall harvesting CS cost would add an extra 22.5 $ t-1 and 5 $ t-1 which would be 154.79 $ t-1 of
dry CS. This would cause deficit for farmers. The 2016 selling price of CS to the ethanol/sugar plant was 22.20 $ t-1 of the dry CS. This
is a better price (studied area) compared to the total harvesting, storing and penalized (ash and moisture) cost of existing fall and
spring harvested CS in round baled, which are estimated to 138.89 $ t-1 and 121.79 $ t-1, respectively if it is stored openly at the farm
area (including nutrients replacement cost).
An estimation of the CS fall harvesting cost in a single pass for farm based biofuel production is shown in Table 3. In addition,
farmers would harvest cleaner CS (less ash) and avoid drying cost (if applicable). For this cost estimation, a chopper (same as forage
chopper) and self-loaded wagon were considered to use for the CS harvesting and stored in either structured or open-stacked storage
system. When an unloaded wagon of chopped CS was stored in structure storage, it cost 71.86 $ t-1 of dry CS. But if it would store at
farm side (Fig. 7a), storage cost would reduce to 12.33 $ t-1 of dry CS. There was not any penalized (ash and moisture) and nutrient
replacement cost. So, total cost would be 40.00 $ t-1 of dry CS if it would be stored openly at farm areas to use for hydrothermal and
AD processes. When the chopped wet CS was stored, dry matter loss was 1.2–10.9% with some fermented products such as volatile

Table 3
Estimated corn stover fall harvesting and storage cost for farm gate use in biofuel production.
Cost items Structured storage [18] ($ t-1 of dry Open stacked storage (this study) ($ t-1 of dry
stover) stover)

Harvesting cost Shredding/chopping and raking into 7.72 7.72

windrow
Self-loading Wagon 21.95 21.95
Storage cost Unloading, wrapping and storing 71.86 12.33
Total 101.54 40.00

11
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

Fig. 8. Estimated yearly GHG reduction for single pass fall harvesting of corn stover.
Note: In 2011, corn grown area was 1334081 ha in Canada and 822465 ha in Ontario [26].

fatty acids (0.39%–1.01% acetic acid, 0.48%–3.66% lactic acid and 0–0.46% ethanol of dry matter). When wet chopped CS was in
plastic wrapped storage, the pH value was 4.1–5.3 [3]. High pH and low acids in stored CS indicated a little fermentation in the
storage period, and these fermented products would be accelerated the AD process.

3.5. Estimation of GHG emission reduction

Left over aboveground CS can contribute only 12.2% of its C to SOC and the rest goes to the atmosphere mostly as CO2 which is a
GHG [13]. It can be estimated from Figs. 3 and 4 that, the aboveground CS contains 4007 kg ha-1 of C per year. For the harvesting of
CS, a significant amount of N is removed from the soil. Average yearly N removal of 29.3 kg ha-1 was found by Karlen et al. [44], in
their five years’ study on the continuous harvesting of CS. This research estimates about 86 kg ha-1 of N contains in the CS. Therefore
if the CS is not harvested with grain, the remaining 57 kg ha-1 y-1 N would be leached out as NO3-, and a portion of N would produce
N2O, which is a strong GHG [45] found in a study that removing CS from the land does not affect the soil CO2 and N2O emission.
Removing of CS can decrease N2O emission [46]. The current research estimates that about 1.5% N of agricultural residues produces
(90% stover removal) 1.2 kg ha-1 of N2O-N [20] and it produces 0.5 t ha-1 CO2e of GHG. GWP of N2O and CH4 are 265 times and 28
times of CO2e, respectively [37]. Considering the estimated fall harvesting CS yield in a single pass system, the estimated GHG
emission reduction is shown in Fig. 8.
Mosier et al. [47] collected literature from the 1994 annual report of the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy about N2O
emission from bare fallow (with grass and alfalfa) farms in Elora (beside studied area), Ontario, Canada and found 3.5 to 3.2 kg ha-1,
N2O-N was emitted within 9 months. N2O-N emission after residue removal was 1.5 ± 0.2 kg ha-1 [20], which can estimate a
1.4–1.8 kg ha-1 of N2O–N for agricultural residue removal of Elora, Ontario farms. Carbon dioxide of 12.90 t ha-1 CO2e would be
produced from 87.8% of the carbon of the harvested CS. Methane (CH4) emission is not considerable for CS conservation [20].
Therefore, to reduce GHG emission from agricultural land, it is important to remove the aboveground CS with nutrient replacement
availability. The current aim is to assess the use of CS for bioenergy production and nutrient recovery to reduce GHGs. One produced
bioenergy is CH4, which will substitute natural gas. On the other hand, for using CS at the farm area, gasoline used for 200 km truck
(two way of 100 km distance) travelling distance would save. Estimated GHG emission savings is 0.99 t ha-1 CO2e from methane
production and 0.008 t ha-1 CO2e from not burning of gasoline would save if this research was available at the farm level. The typical
calculation of 500 tonne of dry CS per bale, 80 L gasoline per truck trip with 40 bales would consume about 3.5 L of gasoline to
transport the CS produced in one hector of land. Here, we considered the specific density of CH4 as 0.555 kg m-3 and the emission
factor of gasoline as 8.887 × 10-3 t CO2 per gallon [37]. Production of Bio-carbon of 23.01 MJkg-1 HHV [34] can be used as the
substitute of coal. The specific CO2 emission of bituminous coal with 75% C is 0.37 kg CO2e kWh-1. So HHV of 10.91 MJkg-1 dry CS
for bio-carbon would produce [{(0.37 ÷ 3600) x 1000} x 10.91 = 1.12 kg CO2e kg-1 dry CS] 9.92 t ha-1 CO2e. Overall GHGs emission
for this research would reduce to 24.32 t ha-1 CO2e if the CS would remove with cobs and husks. But for sustainable production, cobs
and husks (36.57% of CS) can be kept for SOM conservation. In this case GHG emission would be 15.43 t ha-1 CO2 e. According to the
estimated research result, Ontario and Canada would respectively reduce 20.00 Mt y-1 and 32.44 Mt y-1 GHGs emission if this single
pass CS fall harvesting facility would exist and the hybrid bio-carbon and biogas production facility were available at the farm area.
Canada's yearly agriculture sector GHG emission was 59 Mt CO2e (8% of total emission) and Canada's total GHG emission was 732 Mt
CO2e in 2014 [48]. This GHG reduction would be net after deduction of the emission for input energy consumed in hydrothermal and
AD process running. Considering this emission savings, the GHGs emission savings would be 55% of the agriculture sector and 4.43%
of total emission in Canada. For sustainable SOM conservation, keeping cobs and husks (36.57%) in the field is considerable. Then the

12
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

estimated GHG emission reduction in Ontario and in Canada would be 12.66 Mty-1 and 20.58 Mty-1, respectively (35% of the
agriculture sector GHG emission of Canada). For using AD digestate into the same corn farm chemical fertilizer application would
reduce, which would reduce GHG emission. Here GHG emission reduction for chemical fertilizer production was not considered.

4. Conclusions

Existing suggestion for Ontario CS harvest is about 30% of the aboveground CS. But only 12.2% unharvested CS C and < 30% CS
N is recoverable as SOM and the rest would produce GHGs and leached down into the soil. Cobs and husks weight is 36.57% of the
aboveground CS, which can be spread into the field for SOM recovery. Keeping 6–10 cm of the stalk with root can protect soil erosion.
Aboveground CS, grain and root dry matter yield were 8846 kg ha-1, 14840 kg ha-1, and 8098 kg ha-1, respectively in the studied
Ontario farm. Its harvest index (HI) was calculated to 0.63, which is 26% higher than previous research data of Ontario farms.
Keeping the root, cob and husk in the field can recover C and nutrients in the soil, the rest of the aboveground CS (63.43% dry basis)
is sustainably harvestable for bio-carbon and biogas production. AD digestate, a liquid fertilizer can return nutrients to the soil.
Currently, CS is mostly harvested in the spring, when it contains less moisture to reduce storage and transportation costs. Based on
our assessment from the fall 2015 grain and standing plant CS co-harvesting data, we determined yield, ash content, and heating
value of CS. Additionally, the corn stover's potential energy recovery in a hybrid system of bio-carbon and biogas production and
nutrient recovery as liquid fertilizer would apply to the farm were determined in consideration of single-pass harvest system.
The ash content of the standing plant dry CS was 2.34% and its calorific value (HHV) was 18.13 MJkg-1. The existing harvesting
dry CS contains 9.59%–14.3% ash and 15.60 MJ kg-1 to16.60 MJ kg-1 of HHV in Ontario. In the hybrid system (Bio-carbon in hy-
drothermal and biogas in AD), the dry CS can produce 14.137 MJkg-1 of bioenergy, which is about 78% energy recovery of the raw
dry CS. The estimated nutrients such as C, N, P, K, S, Ca, Mg and Na in the removable CS (dry) were 4.01 t ha-1, 85.81 kg ha-1,
13.36 kg ha-1, 23.00 kg ha-1, 46.00 kg ha-1, 74.31 kg ha-1, 28.31 kg ha-1 and 19.46 kg ha-1, respectively, which can mostly return back
into soil when AD digestate can apply into the farm as liquid fertilizer. The existing system (non-removing CS) would lose 87.8% C
and > 70% N in the form of GHGs and leaching.
The existing round bale fall harvest with nutrient replacement and penalty (ash and moisture) cost in Ontario is 154.79 $ t-1 of the
dry CS. This can reduce to 40.00 $ t-1 of dry CS if the single pass fall harvesting wagon collection and farm side open storage for
hydrothermal and AD facility is available. This system would reduce 20.00 Mty-1 CO2e of GHG in Ontario and 32.44 Mty-1 CO2e of
GHG in Canada when the CS was harvested with cobs and husks. But if cobs and husks were kept in the field for sustainable SOM
conservation, then GHG emission reduction in Ontario and Canada would be 12.66 Mty-1 and 20.58 Mty-1, respectively. Canada could
save 55% and 35% GHG emission of the agricultural sector, respectively for CS removal with and without cobs and husk.

Acknowledgements

This research was a part of a PhD research of the School of Engineering of the University of Guelph. We are thankful to the Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) for arranging meeting with various Ontario corn growers. We are thankful
to Mr. Dale Noris, a corn grower cum grain and corn stover harvesting machine owner of Alma, Ontario for his assistant in grain and
corn stover harvesting machine operations and providing his farm data to use this research.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2019.100408.

References

[1] Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Bioproducts, Available at http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-market-information/by-

product-sector, (2016) , Accessed date: 29 September 20162016.
[2] R.D. Perlack, L.L. Wright, A.F. Turhollow, R.L. Graham, B.J. Stokes, D.C. Erbach, Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: the Technical
Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, Oak Ridge National Lab TN, 2005 Available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a436753.pdf , Accessed date:
10 April 2018.
[3] K.J. Shinners, B.N. Binversie, R.E. Muck, P.J. Weimer, Comparison of wet and dry corn stover harvest and storage, Biomass Bioenergy 31 (2007) 211–221.
[4] R. Lal, Is crop residue a waste? J. Soil Water Conserv. 59 (2004) 136A–139A.
[5] W.W. Wilhelm, J.M. Johnson, J.L. Hatfield, W.B. Voorhees, D.R. Linden, Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal, Agron. J. 96 (2004) 1–17.
[6] R.L. Graham, R. Nelson, J. Sheehan, R.D. Perlack, L.L. Wright, Current and potential US corn stover supplies, Agron. J. 99 (2007) 1–11.
[7] J.B. Swan, R.L. Higgs, T.B. Baile, N. Wollenhaupt, W.H. Paulson, A.E. Peterson, Surface residue and in-row treatment effects on long-term no-tillage continuous
corn, Agron. J. 86 (1994) 711–718.
[8] T.C. Kaspar, D.C. Erbach, R.M. Cruse, Corn response to seed-row residue removal, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54 (1990) 1112–1117.
[9] C.E. Clapp, R.R. Allmaras, M.F. Layese, D.R. Linden, R.H. Dowdy, Soil organic carbon and 13 C abundance as related to tillage, crop residue, and nitrogen
fertilization under continuous corn management in Minnesota, Soil Tillage Res. 55 (2000) 127–142.
[10] D.C. Reicosky, S.D. Evans, C.A. Cambardella, R.R. Allmaras, A.R. Wilts, D.R. Huggins, Soil organic carbon storage in continuous corn with moldboard tillage:
tillage and fertility effects, J. Soil Water Conserv. 57 (2002) 277–284.
[11] J.A.E. Molina, C.E. Clapp, D.R. Linden, R.R. Allmaras, M.F. Layese, R.H. Dowdy, H.H. Cheng, Modeling the incorporation of corn (Zea mays L.) carbon from roots
and rhizodeposition into soil organic matter, Soil Biol. Biochem. 33 (2001) 83–92.
[12] H. Flessa, B. Ludwig, B. Heil, W. Merbach, The origin of soil organic C, dissolved organic C and respiration in a long‐term maize experiment in Halle, Germany,
determined by 13C natural abundance, J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163 (2000) 157–163.
[13] M.A. Bolinder, D.A. Angers, M. Giroux, M.R. Laverdiere, Estimating C inputs retained as soil organic matter from corn (Zea mays L.), Plant Soil 215 (1999)
85–91.

13
S. Paul et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 13 (2019) 100408

[14] D.A. Angers, C. Chenu, Dynamics of soil aggregation and C sequestration, Soil processes and the carbon cycle, Nov 25 (1997) 199–206.
[15] R. Duffy, M. Lynn, Development of a Business Case for a Cornstalks to Bioprocessing Venture. Final Report, (2013) University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus.
Available at https://www.ridgetownc.com/research/documents/rduffy_cornstalkreport_final.pdf , Accessed date: 3 October 2017.
[16] OFA, Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Consideration for grading agricultural residue, Available at http://www.ofa.on.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/
gradingagriculturalresidues-final.pdf, (2013) 24 July, 2013 (accessed 03 October 2016).
[17] H. Blanco-Canqui, R. Lal, Corn stover removal for expanded uses reduces soil fertility and structural stability, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73 (2009) 418–426.
[18] P.L. Lizotte, P. Savoie, M. Khelifi, Cost analysis of corn stover harvested in the spring, 2014 Montreal, Quebec Canada July 13–July 16, 2014 (p. 1), American
Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2014.
[19] D.A. Laird, C.W. Chang, Long-term impacts of residue harvesting on soil quality, Soil Tillage Res. 134 (2013) 33–40.
[20] V.L. Jin, J.M. Baker, J.M. Johnson, D.L. Karlen, R.M. Lehman, S.L. Osborne, T.J. Sauer, D.E. Stott, G.E. Varvel, R.T. Venterea, M.R. Schmer, Soil greenhouse gas
emissions in response to corn stover removal and tillage management across the US corn belt, BioEnergy Research 7 (2014) 517–527.
[21] R.R. Allmaras, H.H. Schomberg, C.L. Douglas, T.H. Dao, Soil organic carbon sequestration potential of adopting conservation tillage in US croplands, J. Soil
Water Conserv. 55 (2000) 365–373.
[22] B.H. Ellert, E.G. Gregorich, Storage of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in cultivated and adjacent forested soils of ontario, Soil Sci. 161 (1996) 587–603.
[23] H. Kludze, B. Deen, A. Weersink, R. van Acker, K. Janovicek, A. De Laporte, I. McDonald, Estimating sustainable crop residue removal rates and costs based on
soil organic matter dynamics and rotational complexity, Biomass Bioenergy 56 (2013) 607–618.
[24] G. Stewart, What is the value of crop residue? OMAFRA crop talk, Available at http://fieldcropnews.com, (2011) , Accessed date: 4 October 2016.
[25] USDA-NRCS, Subpart 508C, National Agronomy Manual, USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC, 2001Available at http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/
OpenNonWebContent.aspx , Accessed date: 2 October 2016.
[26] Statistics Canada, Corn: Canada's third most valuable crop, Available at http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/96-325-x/2014001/article/11913-eng.htm, (2016) ,
Accessed date: 3 October 2016.
[27] P.L. Lizotte, P. Savoie, M. Lefsrud, C. Ouellet-Plamondon, Corn stover fractions during extended harvest, 2009 Reno, Nevada, June 21-June 24, 2009 (p. 1),
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2009.
[28] P.L. Lizotte, P. Savoie, Spring harvest of corn stover, Appl. Eng. Agric. 27 (2011) 697–703.
[29] K.J. Shinners, B.N. Binversie, Fractional yield and moisture of corn stover biomass produced in the Northern US Corn Belt, Biomass Bioenergy 31 (2007)
576–584.
[30] P.L. Lizotte, P. Savoie, A. De Champlain, Ash content and calorific energy of corn stover components in eastern Canada, Energies 8 (2015) 4827–4838.
[31] C.L. Wright, Effect of Harvest Method on the Nutrient Composition of Baled Corn Stalks. South Dakota Beef Report, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD,
USA, 2005, pp. 46–47 2005.
[32] P.L. Lizotte, P. Savoie, Spring harvest of corn stover for animal bedding with a self-loading wagon, Appl. Eng. Agric. 29 (2013) 25–31.
[33] R.L. Hoskinson, D.L. Karlen, S.J. Birrell, C.W. Radtke, W.W. Wilhelm, Engineering, nutrient removal, and feedstock conversion evaluations of four corn stover
harvest scenarios, Biomass Bioenergy 31 (2007) 126–136.
[34] S. Paul, A. Dutta, F. Defersha, Mechanical and alkaline hydrothermal treated corn residue conversion in to bioenergy and biofertilizer: a resource recovery
concept, Energies 11 (2018) 516.
[35] L. Marchand, Cost Assessment for Cornstalk Supply Chain for Bioprocessing Purses, (2015) Prepared for: Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA). Available at
https://ofa.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Cost-Assessments-September-20151.pdf , Accessed date: 2 October 2016.
[36] INL (2013) Idaho National Laboratory. Feedstock Supply System Design and Economics for Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbon Fuels
Conversion Pathway: Biological Conversion of Sugars to Hydrocarbons “The 2017 Design Case” September 2013. Available at: https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/
sti/6013245.pdf (accessed 11 October 2016).
[37] IPCC, IPCC fifth assessment report, 2014 (AR5), Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL, (2014) ,
Accessed date: 25 October 2016(p. 73-79).
[38] EPA, US environmental protection agency, Available at https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references, (2015) ,
Accessed date: 31 October 2016.
[39] J.E. Sawyer, A.P. Mallarino, Nutrient removal when harvesting corn stover, Available at https://www.scholar.google.ca, (2008) , Accessed date: 3 October 2016.
[40] K.J. Shinners, B.N. Binversie, Whole-plant corn harvesting for biomass: comparison of single-pass and multiple-pass harvest systems, 2003 ASAE Annual Meeting
2003 (p. 1), American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2003.
[41] J. Balesdent, M. Balabane, Major contribution of roots to soil carbon storage inferred from maize cultivated soils, Soil Biol. Biochem. 28 (1996) 1261–1263.
[42] Ş.A. Demirba, Combustion properties and calculation higher heating values of diesel fuels, Petrol. Sci. Technol. 16 (7–8) (1998) 785–795.
[43] S. Xiong, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhuo, T. Lestander, P. Geladi, Variations in fuel characteristics of corn (Zea mays) stovers: general spatial patterns and relationships to soil
properties, Renew. Energy 35 (2010) 1185–1191.
[44] D.L. Karlen, S.J. Birell, J.R. Hess, A five-year assessment of corn stover harvest in central Iowa, USA, Soil Tillage Res. 115 (2011) 47–55.
[45] J.M. Johnson, N.W. Barbour, Crop yield and greenhouse gas response to stover harvest on glacial till Mollisol, Proceedings from the 19th World Congress of, Soil
Science 2010, Aug, 2010, pp. 36–39.
[46] L. Dendooven, L. Patino-Zúniga, N. Verhulst, M. Luna-Guido, R. Marsch, B. Govaerts, Global warming potential of agricultural systems with contrasting tillage
and residue management in the central highlands of Mexico, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 152 (2012) 50–58.
[47] A.R. Mosier, J.M. Duxbury, J.R. Freney, O. Heinemeyer, K. Minami, Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural fields: assessment, measurement and mitigation,
Progress in Nitrogen Cycling Studies 1996, Springer Netherlands, 1996, pp. 589–602.
[48] Environment Canada, National inventory report 1990-2014: greenhouse gas sources and sinks in Canada, Available at: https://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg, (2016) ,
Accessed date: 25 October 2016.

14