Biomass Feedstock Storage for Quantity and Quality Preservation - Engineering and Science of Biomass Feedstock Production and Provision - page 183

Fig. 7.10 Weathering of the outer layer of a switchgrass square bale in Pena, Illinois. Photograph
courtesy of the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering of the University of Illinois

Table 7.4 Biomass losses and investment costs were analyzed for three biomass storage methods:
ambient storage (outdoor, covered with a thin plastic film), covered storage without drying, and
dried biomass stored in a warehouse a

Ambient
storage
Material loss (% per month) Negligible 0.5 % 1 %
Storage investment cost ( € /m 2 present value) 222 110 22
a Adapted from Rentizelas et al. [ 44 ], based on a case study of cotton stalks and almond tree prunings

Dried—
warehoused

Covered—
no drying

loss the most. They concluded that although covered rectangular bales had higher
dry matter loss, they were still profitable due to lower harvest, storage, and transport
costs. Uncovered storage of round bales was recommended only for high prices at
the farm gate and long-storage durations.
Recently, there has been greater interest in exploring the option of wet storage or
ensilage [ 47 ]. Li et al. [ 6 ] summarized the advantages of using wet storage, includ-
ing lower harvesting cost, lower dry matter loss, increased product uniformity,
improved feedstock susceptibility to further processing, reduced risk of fire, and
value addition to the feedstock. They concluded that these advantages make wet
storage a potentially suitable option, especially for wet and humid regions where
drying of feedstock can be challenging.