Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach
ABSTRACT The capacity to produce switchgrass efficiently and cost‐effectively across diverse environments can be pivotal in achieving the short‐ and medium‐term Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets set by the U.S. Department of Energy. This study evaluated the economic performance of forage‐ and bioene...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | GCB Bioenergy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.70020 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832577720926601216 |
|---|---|
| author | Muhammad Umer Arshad David Archer Daniel Wasonga Nictor Namoi Arvid Boe Rob Mitchell Emily Heaton Madhu Khanna DoKyoung Lee |
| author_facet | Muhammad Umer Arshad David Archer Daniel Wasonga Nictor Namoi Arvid Boe Rob Mitchell Emily Heaton Madhu Khanna DoKyoung Lee |
| author_sort | Muhammad Umer Arshad |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | ABSTRACT The capacity to produce switchgrass efficiently and cost‐effectively across diverse environments can be pivotal in achieving the short‐ and medium‐term Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets set by the U.S. Department of Energy. This study evaluated the economic performance of forage‐ and bioenergy‐type switchgrass cultivars and their response to N fertilization under diverse marginal environments across the US Midwest that included Illinois (IL), Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE), and South Dakota (SD). Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was used to evaluate the efficiency of 23 Decision‐Making Units (DMUs)—cultivar types and N fertilization rate combinations—while a cost–benefit analysis calculated their profitability over 5 years. Results showed that two energy‐type cultivars—“Independence” and “Liberty”—were superior economically to the forage cultivars. Independence performed best with the highest profit margin when fertilized at 56 kg N ha−1, particularly in the US hardiness zone 6a (Urbana, IL). Liberty exhibited the highest profit margins in hardiness zone 5b (Madrid, IA, and Ithaca, NE) at 56 kg N ha−1 and showed exceptional profitability with 28 kg N ha−1 in hardiness zone 6b (Brighton, IL). Switchgrass cultivar “Carthage” showed better efficiency score and profitability results in hardiness zone 4b (South Shore, SD) at 56 kg N ha−1. The profit trends observed in current study sites may indicate broader patterns across similar US hardiness zones. This study provides valuable insights for decision‐makers to optimize input strategies for biomass production of bioenergy switchgrass to meet renewable energy demands. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-15d18bac6c2d419ab061526e8630ae14 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1757-1693 1757-1707 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | GCB Bioenergy |
| spelling | doaj-art-15d18bac6c2d419ab061526e8630ae142025-01-30T16:06:35ZengWileyGCB Bioenergy1757-16931757-17072025-02-01172n/an/a10.1111/gcbb.70020Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis ApproachMuhammad Umer Arshad0David Archer1Daniel Wasonga2Nictor Namoi3Arvid Boe4Rob Mitchell5Emily Heaton6Madhu Khanna7DoKyoung Lee8Department of Crop Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana Illinois USANorthern Great Plains Research Laboratory United States Department of Agriculture‐Agricultural Research Service Mandan North Dakota USADepartment of Crop Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana Illinois USADepartment of Crop Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana Illinois USAPlant Science Department South Dakota State University Brookings South Dakota USADepartment of Agronomy and Horticulture, USDA Central‐East Regional Biomass Center Grain, Forage and Bioenergy Research Unit, USDA‐ARS Lincoln Nebraska USADepartment of Crop Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana Illinois USADepartment of Agricultural and Consumer Economics University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana Illinois USADepartment of Crop Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign Urbana Illinois USAABSTRACT The capacity to produce switchgrass efficiently and cost‐effectively across diverse environments can be pivotal in achieving the short‐ and medium‐term Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets set by the U.S. Department of Energy. This study evaluated the economic performance of forage‐ and bioenergy‐type switchgrass cultivars and their response to N fertilization under diverse marginal environments across the US Midwest that included Illinois (IL), Iowa (IA), Nebraska (NE), and South Dakota (SD). Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was used to evaluate the efficiency of 23 Decision‐Making Units (DMUs)—cultivar types and N fertilization rate combinations—while a cost–benefit analysis calculated their profitability over 5 years. Results showed that two energy‐type cultivars—“Independence” and “Liberty”—were superior economically to the forage cultivars. Independence performed best with the highest profit margin when fertilized at 56 kg N ha−1, particularly in the US hardiness zone 6a (Urbana, IL). Liberty exhibited the highest profit margins in hardiness zone 5b (Madrid, IA, and Ithaca, NE) at 56 kg N ha−1 and showed exceptional profitability with 28 kg N ha−1 in hardiness zone 6b (Brighton, IL). Switchgrass cultivar “Carthage” showed better efficiency score and profitability results in hardiness zone 4b (South Shore, SD) at 56 kg N ha−1. The profit trends observed in current study sites may indicate broader patterns across similar US hardiness zones. This study provides valuable insights for decision‐makers to optimize input strategies for biomass production of bioenergy switchgrass to meet renewable energy demands.https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.70020biomassdata envelopment analysis (DEA)marginal landsPanicum virgatumprofitrenewable energy |
| spellingShingle | Muhammad Umer Arshad David Archer Daniel Wasonga Nictor Namoi Arvid Boe Rob Mitchell Emily Heaton Madhu Khanna DoKyoung Lee Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach GCB Bioenergy biomass data envelopment analysis (DEA) marginal lands Panicum virgatum profit renewable energy |
| title | Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach |
| title_full | Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach |
| title_fullStr | Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach |
| title_short | Comparative Economic Analysis Between Bioenergy and Forage Types of Switchgrass for Sustainable Biofuel Feedstock Production: A Data Envelopment Analysis and Cost–Benefit Analysis Approach |
| title_sort | comparative economic analysis between bioenergy and forage types of switchgrass for sustainable biofuel feedstock production a data envelopment analysis and cost benefit analysis approach |
| topic | biomass data envelopment analysis (DEA) marginal lands Panicum virgatum profit renewable energy |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.70020 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT muhammadumerarshad comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT davidarcher comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT danielwasonga comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT nictornamoi comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT arvidboe comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT robmitchell comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT emilyheaton comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT madhukhanna comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach AT dokyounglee comparativeeconomicanalysisbetweenbioenergyandforagetypesofswitchgrassforsustainablebiofuelfeedstockproductionadataenvelopmentanalysisandcostbenefitanalysisapproach |