COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTERIZED DATABASE

Identifying Energy Needs & Biomass Resources

Within The State of Mississippi

PREPARED BY:

Alcorn State University

Mississippi Small Farm Development Center

Alcorn State, Mississippi

Samuel Scott, Ph.D  P.I.

Magid Dagher, Ph.D P.I.

Elizabeth Myles, M.S.  Research Associate

Andrea Tillman, M.S. Research Associate

 

SUBMITTED TO:

MISSISSIPPI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY-

ENERGY DIVISION

GRANT NO. GT99-348-001

April 2002

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 4

Definitions & Acronyms................................................................................................................. 5

Chapter I.   Introduction................................................................................................................. 7

        Project Background....................................................................................................... 8

                    Statement of Work........................................................................................................ 8

                    Organization of the Study............................................................................................... 9

Chapter II.  Methodology.............................................................................................................. 9

Chapter III: Biomass Resources................................................................................................. 10

                        Cellulose and Hemicellulose..................................................................................... 10

Waste Biomass and Landfills.................................................................................... 10

Municipal Solid Waste............................................................................................. 13

Transfer Stations...................................................................................................... 14

Waste Water Treatment Facilities............................................................................. 14

Agricultural Residues .............................................................................................. 15

                        Forest Residues....................................................................................................... 22

Chapter V: Resource Map By County/ GIS Mapping............................................................... 24

Chapter VI: Database Usage....................................................................................................... 33

Chapter VII: Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 33

Appendix....................................................................................................................................... 34

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     The Mississippi Small Farm Development Center at Alcorn State University would like to express sincere thanks to the United States Department of Energy and Mississippi Development Authority- Energy Division for establishing a grant agreement to support the development of the energy component of the comprehensive database.  Special thanks to Wes Miller, Manager of the Financial and Technical Assistance Bureau and Dr. Barbara Ousby, Environmental Scientist, Kweku Donkar, Sami Aduprah and John Annor (GIS Specialists-Alcorn State University, Industrial Technology Department). Clark Love, President & CEO of the Forest One Company; Robert H. (Bobby) Smith, Director, Institutions of Higher Learning-Mississippi Automated Resource Information System IHL-MARIS; Michael Brooks, CD designer/author; Perry Woods, Consultant; and Dr. Marie Walsh, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

     We would like to thank Mike Freeman and Pradip Bhowal, Environmental Scientists from the Mississippi Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) for their assistance in providing additional information on the municipal facilities. Donna Hughes, Business Manager for the Mississippi Municipal League for assistance with the Mississippi Municipal Association Directory.  In addition, we would like to thank all of the wastewater and landfill facilities owners/operators who readily answered questions about their facilities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

     This project developed an energy component to a small farm database that could purposely impact farming practices, business recruitment and utility structures resulting in the additional economic development activity.  The database identifies (1) cellulose and hemicellulose crops that are currently grown that could be dedicated to the production of power or fuel, (2) hemicellulose crops which could be used as substitutes for petroleum derived polymers, (3) waste products existing in Mississippi which could be used to generate energy, (4) waste water treatment facilities in operation in Mississippi, (5) quantities of fuel used to operate waste water treatment facilities and the annual utility rate and cost, (6) sources of animal fats (restaurants and slaughter houses) which could potentially  be used to produce biodiesel, and (7) potential users of the database.

     The Small Farm Energy Database was developed from secondary data sources and primary surveys.  Geo-spatial technology was employed to create a Global Positioning System (GPS) database from the enterprise survey forms.  The GPS database was converted to spatial data sets to show the distribution of the enterprises.  Maps and tables were prepared for ease of understanding the components of the database. 

     The major types of biomass resources identified were: cellulose, hemicellulose, waste biomass and landfills, municipal solid waste, transfer stations, waste water treatment facilities, agricultural residues, and forest residues.  In 2000, significant quantities of waste were generated; according the Mississippi Department of Environment Quality (DEQ), 11,500,000 tons of waste was generated in Pontotoc County at the Three Rivers Regional Landfill.

     Forest resources account for the majority of Mississippi’s current biomass, and will continue to dominate in the future.  Increases in the use of forest resources for energy are likely to come first from full utilization of mill residues, followed by production of wood chips in association with timber harvesting operations.

Definitions & Acronyms

Biomass:
Any plant-derived organic matter. Biomass available for energy on a sustainable basis includes herbaceous and woody energy crops, agricultural food and feed crops, agricultural crop wastes and residues, wood wastes and residues, aquatic plants, and other waste materials including some municipal wastes. Biomass is a very heterogeneous and chemically complex renewable resource.

Btu:
A British thermal unit is a measure of energy equal to the heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.

Cellulose:
The carbohydrate that is the principal constituent of wood and other biomass and forms the structural framework of the wood cells. It is a polymer of glucose with a repeating unit of C₆H₁₀O₅ strung together by ßß-glycosidic linkages. The ßß-linkages in cellulose form linear chains that are highly stable and resistant to chemical attack because of the high degree of hydrogen bonding that can occur between chains of cellulose (see below). Hydrogen bonding between cellulose chains makes the polymers more rigid, inhibiting the flexing of the molecules that must occur in the hydrolytic breaking of the glycosidic linkages. Hydrolysis can reduce cellulose to a cellobiose-repeating unit, C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁, and ultimately to glucose, C₆H₁₂O₆. Heating values for cellulose may be slightly different based upon the feedstock. Example values are shown below (higher heating value [HHV] at 30°°C, dry basis).  

Hemicellulose:
Hemicellulose consists of short, highly branched chains of sugars. In contrast to cellulose, which is a polymer of only glucose, a hemicellulose is a polymer of five different sugars. It contains five-carbon sugars (usually D-xylose and L-arabinose) and six-carbon sugars (D-galactose, D-glucose, and D-mannose) and uronic acid. The sugars are highly substituted with acetic acid. The branched nature of hemicellulose renders it amorphous and relatively easy to hydrolyze to its constituent sugars compared to cellulose. When hydrolyzed, the hemicellulose from hardwoods releases products high in xylose (a five-carbon sugar). The hemicellulose contained in softwoods, by contrast, yields more six-carbon sugars.

Forestry Residues:    Includes tops, limbs, and other woody material not removed in forest harvesting operations in commercial hardwood and softwood stands, as well as woody material resulting from forest management operations such as precommercial thinnings and removal of dead and dying trees.

Furfural:
A colorless, sweet-smelling, mobile liquid, C₄H₃OCHO, made from corncobs and used in the synthesis of furan, as a solvent for nitrocellulose, and as a fungicide and weed killer.                   

Gas:
The gas that is generated from the decomposition of organic materials at solid waste disposal sites.  The gas generated is approximately 50% methane.

Glucose: 
A simple six-carbon sugar C₆H₁₂O₆. A product of hydrolysis of glucan found in cellulose and starch. A sweet, colorless sugar that is the most common sugar in nature and the sugar most commonly fermented to ethanol.

Landfill:
A method of solid waste disposal in which refuse is buried between layers of dirt so as to fill in or reclaim low-lying ground. To dispose of (waste material) in a landfill.

Municipal Wastes:
Residential, commercial, and institutional post-consumer wastes contain a significant proportion of plant-derived organic material that constitutes a renewable energy resource. Waste paper, cardboard, construction and demolition wood waste, and yard wastes are examples of biomass resources in municipal wastes.

Residues, Biomass:
Byproducts from processing all forms of biomass that have significant energy potential. For example, making solid wood products and pulp from logs produces bark, shavings and sawdust, and spent pulping liquors. Because these residues are already collected at the point of processing, they can be convenient and relatively inexpensive sources of biomass for energy.

Structural Chemical Analysis:
The composition of biomass reported by the proportions of the major structural components; cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Typical ranges are shown in the table below.

Hydrolysis:
A chemical reaction in which a substance reacts with water so as to be changed into one or more other substances, as a starch into glucose, natural fats into glycerol and fatty acids, or a salt into a weak acid or a weak base .

Chapter I:  INTRODUCTION

     The Mississippi State Legislature established the Mississippi Small Farm Development Center (SFDC) at Alcorn State University (ASU) in 1988.  The mission of the SFDC is to promote, to enhance, and to facilitate the development of small farms and alternative agricultural enterprises, including international marketing, and thereby improving the economic conditions of small farmers throughout Mississippi.

     The Center was funded with $250,000 in 1993 and began offering interest free loans through its agricultural loan program in 1995.  The loan program was expanded in 1996 when the Center received $1 million to support emerging crop and livestock enterprises, to promote value-added products, and to establish marketing systems.

     On February 8, 1999, the Mississippi Development Authority-Energy Division approved a grant agreement with the Mississippi Small Farm Development Center at Alcorn State University in Alcorn State, Mississippi to develop a comprehensive computerized database to identify energy needs and availability along with biomass resources, especially those with economic development potential and to evaluate the environmental impact of alternative farming practices.  By showing the magnitude and geographic distribution of Mississippi’s biomass resources, this report can help to identify new opportunities for economic development and energy development programs.

     For the purpose of this database, biomass resources include organic matter in Mississippi that is available on a renewable basis, including forest resources and logging residues, wood wastes, municipal waste landfills, waste water treatment facilities, livestock and poultry wastes, and crop residues. 

Project Background

     Biomass is the renewable feedstock most capable of displacing fossil fuels quickly in an emergency and permanently in industrial utility boilers and in residential space heating applications.  Municipal waste-to-energy facilities can make a substantial contribution to managing the waste disposal crisis that faces us.

     Biomass energy is part of the solution to several problems, including global warming.  Green plants give off oxygen while using carbon dioxide, which comprises 50 percent of the global warming gases.  If trees and other green plants used for energy are replanted, there is no net increase in carbon dioxide levels.  The process of overcoming the barriers to increased biomass energy use involves first, analysis of the problem; second, information dissemination; and third, creation of networks.  As Mississippi plans its future energy strategies, biomass is likely to offer significant opportunities for agricultural, industrial, commercial, transportation and residential energy.

Statement of Work

     This project developed an energy component to a small farm database that could purposely impact farming practices, business recruitment and utility structures.  The database will:

• identify cellulose and hemicellulose crops that are currently grown that could be dedicated  to the production of power or fuel.

• identify hemicellulose crops which could be used as substitutes for petroleum derived polymers and the estimated amounts that should be collected and processed annually.

• identify waste products existing in Mississippi which could be used to generate energy.

• identify waste water treatment facilities in operation in Mississippi and document fuel used for operation and the annual utility rate and costs.
• provide a plan of information distribution to identify potential users of the database.

Organization of the Study

     The organization of study consists of collecting data on biomass resources in the state of Mississippi and developed the database from the analysis and data collection.

Chapter II:  METHODOLOGY

     The study uses the following methodology to generate the information.  A questionnaire was developed and used to survey the swine, poultry, dairy and sweet potato farmers.  In order to obtain information on the location as well as the spatial distribution of the enterprises in Mississippi, it was necessary to use Global Positioning System (GPS) to map the enterprises.

Information was converted using the GPS database to spatial data sets to show the spatial distribution of the enterprises.  Maps and tables from the survey data were prepared using Microsoft Access and Arc View.      

     The Mississippi Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) provided information on municipal solid waste landfills, waste water treatment facilities and landfills. This information was prepared using Microsoft Access software.  Each facility was then contacted by telephone to verify the information and to obtain additional data that were recorded. 

     The Forest One Company and Mississippi Automated Resource Information System (MARIS) assisted with data for forest resource for the state.

Chapter III:  BIOMASS RESOURCES

Cellulose and Hemicellulose

     Mississippi has substantial waste and residual biomass resources because of its rich agricultural and forestry resources and its large volume of commercial and municipal solid waste materials.  

     Biomass is a broad term, generally defined as matter produced through photosynthesis, consisting of plant materials and agricultural, industrial, and municipal wastes and residues derived therefrom.  Biomass is often referred to as cellulosic or lignocellulosic biomass to differentiate it from grain-based, starch-containing feedstocks and sugars.  The term is also descriptive, as biomass contains three primary constituents:  cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, and can contain varying amounts of other compounds (i.e., extractives).  As Figure 1 shows, the cellulose and hemicellulose are contained in bundle-like structures, with lignin acting like glue to bond the bundles together.  The process of converting lignocellulosic biomass to ethanol involves pretreating the biomass to separate the carbohydrate fraction and breaking down these bundles to access the available sugars.

     Cellulosic biomass must be highly processed to make available sugars that can be fermented into ethanol, compared to sugars (requiring the least processing) and starches.  The extensive processing required for cellulosic materials is more costly than that for processing starches and sugars.  Cellulosic materials are also unique to starch- and sugar-based feedstocks in that they are inherently low energy-density fuels, which means that they are comparatively expensive to collect, process and transport.  The important advantages of cellulosic residues are their relative abundance and potentially low, or even negative, cost.

     The potential environmental impacts of biomass energy from energy crops, particularly the cellulosic energy crops currently under development.  The term energy crop is grown primarily to provide a feedstock for biofuels such as ethanol or to be burned for heat or electricity.  Cellulose and carbohydrates both can be converted to ethanol, but more cellulose can be produced per unit land area than carbohydrates.  Therefore, cellulose-based ethanol production is a more efficient use of land.

     Cellulosic biomass must be highly processed to make available sugars that can be fermented into ethanol, compared to sugars (requiring the least processing) and starches.  The extensive processing required for cellulosic materials is more costly than that for processing starches and sugars.  Cellulosic materials are also unique to starch and sugar based feedstocks in that they are inherently low energy-density fuels, which means that they are comparatively expensive to collect, process and transport.  The important advantages of cellulosic residues are their relative abundance and potentially low, or even negative, cost.

     The conversion of cellulosic biomass to ethanol parallels the corn conversion process.  The cellulose must first be converted to sugars by hydrolysis and then fermented to produce ethanol.  Cellulosic feedstocks (composed of cellulose and hemicellulose) are more difficult to convert to sugar than are carbohydrates.  Two common methods for converting cellulose to sugar are dilute acid hydrolysis and concentrated acid hydrolysis, both of which use sulfuric acid.  Dilute acid hydrolysis occurs in two stages to take advantage of the differences between hemicellulose and cellulose.  The first stage is performed at low temperature   to maximize the yield from the hemicellulose, and the second, higher temperature stage is optimized for hydrolysis of the cellulose portion of the feedstock.  Concentrated acid hydrolysis uses a dilute acid pretreatment to separate the hemicellulose and cellulose.  The biomass is then dried before the addition of the concentrated sulfuric acid.  Water is added to dilute the acid and then heated to release the sugars, producing a gel that can be separated from residual solids. 

Figure 1:  Plant Cell Wall

WASTE BIOMASS AND LANDFILLS

     Waste biomass can be considered unwanted products or materials having no further value or use.  However, many of the biomass resources discussed in this report are not truly wastes but rather residues. The majority of forest and agricultural materials produced are utilized in one way or another, maintaining some value, and do not end up in municipal solid waste landfills.

     The waste products existing in Mississippi, which could be used to generate energy, are forest residue (wood and mill products); cotton residue and municipal solid waste landfills.  Landfill data were obtained from the Groundwater Division of the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). (See Table 1).  The groundwater or solid waste division within the environmental agency in each state of interest should maintain landfill data.  In addition to active landfill data, emissions from closed or inactive landfills should be calculated.  However, data for closed or inactive landfills may not be monitored as closely as the active landfills.  The Groundwater Division supplied the following information for the landfills:

·        acreage of the landfill

·        estimated remain capacity

·        estimated life of the landfill

·        influx of solid waste on a daily basis (tons per day)

Table 1

Source: BioCycle Journal of Composting & Organics Recycling

December 2001

Included in the database are the following:

• 18 Active Municipal Solid Waste Landfills                                

·        9 Inactive Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

·        7 Solid Waste Processing Facilities                              

·        63 Commercial Class I Rubbish Disposal Facilities                                                                   

·        28 Industrial Special Waste Landfills

     A secure landfill is a carefully engineered depression in the ground (or built on top of the ground, resembling a football stadium) into which wastes are put. The aim is to avoid any hydraulic water related connection between the wastes and the surrounding environment, particularly groundwater. 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

     In 2000, Mississippi disposed of approximately 4,400,000 tons of solid waste in landfills and 334,000 tons were imported from other states.  Of the waste products 14% are recycled, 2% are composted, 83.995% landfilled, and only 0.005% is incinerated. (See Table 2).

Table 2

Source: BioCycle Journal of Composting & Organics Recycling –December 2001

  Transfer Stations

     There are 37 MSW transfer stations in the state (60% publicly owned and 40% privately owned).  The tipping fee range at transfer stations is $28-$45 per year. (See Table 3).

Table 3

Source: BioCycle Journal of Composting & Organics Recycling December 2001

  Waste Water Treatment Facilities

     There are 4,400,000 tons per year of MSW in Mississippi.  Of the MSW 16 is recycled, 0% is incinerated, and 84% is landfilled. (See Table 4).

Table 4

Source: BioCycle Journal of Composting & Organics Recycling December 2001

AGRICULTURAL RESIDUES

        Agriculture is Mississippi’s number one industry, employing approximately 30% of the state’s workforce either directly or indirectly. Agriculture in Mississippi is a 4.8 billion-dollar industry (including dairy, livestock, and poultry).  According to the Mississippi Department of Agriculture (2001) there are approximately 43,000 farms in the state covering millions of acres.  The average size farm is composed of 258 acres.

Dairy

     Mississippi has approximately 365 Grade A dairy farms, mainly in Walthall, Amite, Lincoln and Pike counties.  There are 3 commercial dairy processors in Mississipp.  Dairy gross income in 2001 was estimated at $80 million.  The opportunity for dairy farming in the state of Mississippi is excellent. Mississippi is a deficit producing state resulting in milk being imported from sources outside the state to meet market needs. A good market is available to any producer located in any part of the state. There are a significant number of producers going out of business every year. However, cow number and total production is not going down as rapidly as number of herds. Herd size and production per cow is increasing at a rapid rate.

     According to the Mississippi Agriculture Statistics 2000, milk cows on farms in Mississippi averaged 36,000 head during the year 2000, down 2,000 head from the previous year.  Annual milk production per cow, at 15,111 pounds, was 585 pounds better than 1999.  Total milk production, at 544 million pounds, was down 1 percent from a year earlier.  Milk fat produced per cow during 2000 amounted to 547 pounds, up 26 pounds from the previous year.  The number of farms with mild cows dropped to 520, compared to 550 farms the previous year.

     Producers in Mississippi sold 540 million pounds of milk to plants and dealers during 2000, a decrease of 1 percent from a year earlier.  In addition, producers used one million pounds of milk, cream and butter on the farm, the same as a year earlier.  The average value of milk was $13.90 per hundredweight, down $2.40 from the previous year.

     Most of the dairies in Mississippi are located in the southern portion of the state, primarily due to the ability of the south Mississippi producer to grow large quantities of ryegrass. Some of these producers can graze ryegrass seven to eight months of the year.

Poultry

     Mississippi has approximately 740 million broilers produced yearly.  Broilers chickens weigh an average of 5 pounds each. Poultry gross income in 2001 was estimated at $1.54 billion.    All chickens (excluding broilers) on hand December 1, 2000, totaled 10.3 million head, down 7 percent from the previous year.  Hens and pullets of laying age, at 6.60 million head, declined 3 percent from December 1, 1999.  The total value of all chickens amounted to $55.6 million, down 2 percent from the previous year.

     According to the Mississippi Agriculture Statistics 2000, the number of broilers produced during 2000 totaled a record high 740 million head, up 1 percent from 1999.  Production of broilers amounted to 3.70 billion pounds and averaged 33.0 cents per pound.  Cash receipts for commercial broilers in 2000 totaled $1.22 billion, down 8 percent from the previous year.  The total number of eggs produced in 2000 amounted to 1.58 billion, up 1 percent from a year earlier.  Hatching eggs accounted for 68 percent of this total.  The 2000 average price received for all eggs was $1.18 per dozen, down 3 cents from a year earlier.

     The commercial poultry industry in Mississippi has been a leader among all agricultural commodities. The primary income-generating phase of the industry in Mississippi is the production of broilers. The egg industry provides a substantial contribution to the agricultural economy of our state.

The industry is composed of combinations of integrated poultry companies, contract growers, and independent operators. Many other agricultural groups emulate the poultry industry as a "trendsetter" for improving efficiency and productivity.

Swine

     The Mississippi swine industry has changed and will continue to change. Small operations, producing feeder pigs as a source of supplemental income, have changed to farrow through finish operations and company owned contract production where swine is a major source of income.

The inventory of hogs and pigs on December 1, 2000, totaled 315,000 head, up 13 percent from a year earlier and 15 percent above December 1, 1998.  Hogs for breeding on December 1, 2000, amounted to 28,000 head, up 2,000 head from the previous year.  Market hogs, at 287,000 head, increased 13 percent from December 1, 1999.  Sows farrowing during 1999 through 2000 period totaled 25,000 head, down 15 percent from the same period during 1999. During this same period, the pig crop was estimated at 228,000 head, down 16 percent from the previous year.  There were 26,500 sows that farrowed during June through November, down 5 percent from the same period during 1999.  The pig crop was estimated at 256,000 head, up 2 percent from a year earlier.

There were 1,500 farm operations with hogs in 2000.  In comparison, there were 33,000 farm operations with hogs in 1969. 

The total value of hogs and pigs in 1999, amounted to $21.3 million, up 65 percent from the previous year's $12.9 million.  Cash receipts from marketing totaled $43.7 million, up 8 percent from 1998.  The average price per 100 pounds was $29.80, compared with $33.70 the previous year.

Sweet Potato

     Mississippi ranks 5^th among sweet potato producing states in the number of acres planted.  There are approximately 150 sweet potato producers in Mississippi growing 6,000 acres of sweet potatoes.  Growing season: 100 to 121 days; planting: May and June; Harvesting: August to November.  Sweet potatoes contribute $15 million dollars to the Mississippi economy each year.  It has the highest dollar per return per acre of any vegetable grown in the state.  Top sweet potato producing counties in Mississippi are Calhoun, Chickasaw, Panola, Pontotoc, and Yalobusha.  There are four grades of sweet potatoes: U.S. Extra No.1, U.S. No. 1, U.S. Commercial, and U.S. No. 2.

Table 5. Nutrient content of manure^*

^*All numbers are average values.

Most livestock producers in Mississippi with confined or partially confined livestock use one or a combination of the following methods to manage animal waste (See Table 5): 

• Solid manure handling
• Slurry manure handling
• Dry stack storage
• Liquid manure handling

Solid manure handling, or scrape and haul, is used on many dairy farms and in some beef and swine operations. This method involves scraping and collecting solid or semi-solid manure for land application. Waste is hauled and spread on cropland daily or stored temporarily until land applied. There is usually no processing or treatment of waste, and a conventional box manure spreader is commonly used to spread the material. Some facilities allow scraping and/or flushing.

Slurry manure handling is used in some dairies and basically is a mixture of waste with only enough water added for handling. The solids content of the material is usually too high to handle in conventional irrigation systems. Storage may be in pits or tanks, above or below ground. The material usually is hauled in a tank wagon or truck and spread on cropland.

Dry stack storage is used in poultry (broiler) operations to store manure temporarily before land application. Large amounts of manure can be stored with this method for easy handling and uniform distribution. An ideal storage area is a roofed building with a concrete floor to keep out rain and prevent nutrients from possibly entering water supplies.

Liquid manure handling is used in many confined animal operations, including dairy, veal, swine, and poultry layer operations. This method usually involves using water to flush fresh manure through alleys or gutters to a lagoon or storage pond. Some liquid systems have primary and secondary lagoons for more complete waste treatment. The material may be land-applied through specially designed irrigation equipment or other equipment. In dairy operations, a system to remove solids before they enter the lagoon or storage pond is recommended.

A well-designed, constructed, and managed waste treatment system is essential for effective nutrient recovery and to protect water quality. A properly managed lagoon or storage pond effectively meets these needs.

Animal Waste

      Managing animal waste (manure) on dairy, swine, poultry, beef, and other livestock farms is an important concern for Mississippi farmers. Managing animal waste properly helps recover nutrients that otherwise would be lost; it also reduces the possibility of contaminating water and the environment. The trend toward larger, more confined animal operations makes well-designed and managed waste management systems even more important.

Properly collected, stored, and applied nutrients in animal waste can help some livestock farmers reduce commercial fertilizer costs. Because of the nutrient benefits, animal waste should be considered a resource rather than a waste. Using animal waste nutrients as fertilizer is the logical way to recover part of the cost of handling waste. Managing animal waste properly helps farmers comply with environmental laws while creating a cleaner, healthier environment for livestock.

     A lagoon is a type of earth storage where bacteria break down animal waste into less harmful components. These bacteria may be aerobic (need oxygen to live) or anaerobic (do not need oxygen to live). Most newer livestock lagoons are anaerobic.

    The upper part of an anaerobic lagoon is liquid. Some solid material, or sludge, settles to the bottom where it is broken down by bacteria. To prevent overflowing and possible water pollution, the liquid portion of a lagoon should be pumped down regularly and land-applied.

FOREST RESIDUES

       Forest resources account for the majority of Mississippi’s current biomass consumption, and also have the largest potential for future biomass resources.  Increases in the use of forest resources for energy are likely to come first from full utilization of mill residues, followed by production of wood chips in association with timber harvesting operations (See Map 1).  Forest residues are being considered for conversion to ethanol because of the substantial amount of biomass potentially available and because conversion is seen as a partial means of improving forest health.  Residues from the forest branches and small trees left after logging operations, as well as trees collected from thinning operations.

Wood Products:
Sawmills & Furniture Producing Industries

     Sixty-nine counties in the State of Mississippi produce wood products (sawmills, veneer mills, reconstituted wood products mills, and firms manufacturing articles made primarily from wood).

Wood furniture and related products account for:
$3.2 billion in Total Industry Output
49,566 jobs
$1.0 billion in Wages
$1.6 billion in Value Added

Lumber and wood products account for:
$4.9 billion in Total Industry Output
52,841 jobs
$1.1 billion in Wages
$2.0 billion in Value Added

Map 1: Furnishing Producing Industries in Mississippi

Chapter IV:  RESOURCE MAP BY COUNTY/ GIS MAPPING

     One of the objectives of the project was to identify and map swine, poultry, sweet potato and, dairy enterprises in the project area. This was intended to provide information on the spatial distribution of such facilities in the study area.  The geographic coordinates of these facilities were captured with a global positioning system (GPS). The coordinates were then converted to spatial data using Arc View GIS.  Figure 5 in the appendix shows the spatial distribution of the different Small Farm Enterprises that were mapped in selected counties in the project area.

GIS DATABASE 

     In addition to the identification and mapping of the various Small Farm Enterprises, specific attribute information about each enterprise mapped, was also gathered through a questionnaire administered to the farmers. The resultant information from the survey forms was used to create a comprehensive relational database that can easily be linked to the spatial datasets for various analyses in a GIS environment. The relational database contains information on farm ownership, land use, production and farm manure.

     The ownership table has detailed information about the farmer such as name, address, telephone and others.  The land use table on the other hand, provides important information related to land use including, size of available farm land, size of current cropping land, number of pens or houses, total number of chicken or sows and others. Among other things, the database on farm manure contain information on waste disposal methods being used by the farmers, volume of waste from agricultural residues, and the frequency at which waste from the farms are disposed.

SMALL FARM ENTERPRISES

POULTRY FARMS

     The available farmlands for these enterprises range from 2 to 5000 acres with an average of 52.18 acres. Land currently being utilized for poultry farming however ranges from 2 to 600 acres with an average of 28.64 acres. The number of chicken houses per farmer ranges between 2 and 21 with an average of 6 while the total number of chickens per farmer ranges from 19,000 to 3,675,000 with an average of 302,754.

     There are 4 different types of litter being used by poultry farmers in the study area and these are: pine dust, pine shaving, saw dust and, wood shaving. Figure 6 below shows the proportion of farmers using each of the four litter types.

Poultry Production from Surveys

DAIRY FARMS

     Land available for dairy farming ranges between 130 and 5000 acres with an average of 689 acres. Land currently being used for dairy farming however, ranges from 107 to 2000 acres with an average of 30 acres. The total number of cattle per farmer also ranges from 100 to 2556 with an average of 364.  

Dairy Production from Survey

SWEET POTATO

     Land for sweet potato farming ranges between 10 and 6700 with an average of 586.21 acres. Current crop size however ranges from 9 to 200 acres with an average of 177.1 acres.

Sweet Potato Production from Surveys

SWINE FARMING

     The available farmlands for swine production range from 100 to 550 acres with an average of 2017.19 acres. Land currently being utilized for swine production on the other hand ranges from 4 to 140 acres with an average of 14.44 acres. The number of pen per farmer ranges between 4 and 8 with each farmer having an average of 5 pens. The total number of sow per farmer ranges between 3520 to 7360 with an average of 5680.

Swine Production from Surveys

FARM MANURE/ RESIDUAL DISPOSAL METHODS

     Farmers use 8 different methods to dispose of manure from their farms. However, as shown in Table 6 below, the majority of the farmers use the agricultural residues from their farms as a kind of fertilizer to enrich their farmlands.

Table 6: Methods of Disposing Farm Manure

     Some farmers also use the agricultural residues from their farms to feed animals. Most of the farmers, who fall into the later category, are sweet potato farmers. A considerable proportion of the farmers (12.58%) also throw their agricultural waste into lagoons.

VOLUME OF FARM MANURE

     Volume of farm manure or agricultural residues being generated from the Small Farm Enterprises in the study area ranges from 0.025 tons to 1010 tons with an average of 126.34 tons per enterprise.

FREQUENCY OF WASTE DISPOSAL

     As shown in Figure 7 below, more than half of the farmers whose farms were surveyed reported that they dispose of their farm manure or residues yearly while about 16.3% of them do so on monthly basis.

The geographic coordinates of these facilities were captured with a global positioning system (GPS). The coordinates were then converted to spatial data using Arc View GIS.In order to obtain information on the location as well as the spatial distribution of the enterprises in Mississippi, it was necessary to use Global Positioning System (GPS) to map the enterprises.

     The Geographic Information System (GIS) Consultant provided technical input into the designing of the survey questionnaire for the collection of data on bio-energy potential of dairy, poultry, swine, and sweet potato farms in the State of Mississippi.  In addition to the mapping of the farms, attribute data about the farms relating to farm ownership, production, manure, waste disposal methods and others were also collected to create a GIS database that would be linked to the locational data for various analysis. 

Chapter V: DATABASE USAGE

     The Small Farm Energy Database will be use to identify energy needs and availability along with biomass resources, especially those with economic development potential and to evaluate the environmental impact of alternative farming practices.  By showing the magnitude and geographic distribution of Mississippi’s biomass resources, this database can help to identify new opportunities for economic development and energy development programs in Mississippi. The database could purposely impact farming practices, business recruitment and utility structures.

Chapter VI: CONCLUSION     

     As a renewable fuel, biomass-to-ethanol fuel production offers a number of potential energy, environmental and economic benefits for Mississippi.  Creating a viable in-state ethanol industry to capture these benefits, however, poses major challenges.  The cost of producing ethanol remains high, requiring continued government price support to make it a competitive fuel additive.  Developing a Mississippi ethanol industry will also require a state government role to overcome economic, technical, and institutional barriers and uncertainties.  Mississippi produced ethanol fuel will face stiff competition from out-of-state ethanol supplies and in-state petroleum products.  Commercializing new technologies for converting biomass to ethanol raises uncertainties and presents challenges that must be overcome to foster and nurture a commercial ethanol industry in Mississippi.

Chapter IX: APPENDIX

·        TABLES

o       Table 1:            Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and Remaining Capacity (Page 13)

o       Table 2:            Mississippi Municipal Solid Waste Information (Generation)

            Recycling, Land filling, Incineration Rate by Percent (Page 14)

o       Table 3:            Transfer Station (Page 14)

o       Table 4:            Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) (Page 15)

o       Table 5:            Nutrient Content of Manure (Page 19)

o       Table 6:            Method of Disposing Farm Manure

o       Table 7:            Wood Products in Mississippi

o       Table 8:            Crop Residue

o       Table 9:            Counties and Farmers Producing Cotton

o       Table 10:          Number of Cotton Gins in Selected Counties 2000

o       Table 11:          Quantities of Cotton Produced by State 1995-1999

o       Table 12:          Estimated Cotton Waste by Selected Counties 1995-1999

·        FIGURES

o       Figure 1:           Plant Cell Wall (Page 12)

o       Figure 2:           Map Showing Active Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in MS

o       Figure 3:           Map Showing Inactive Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in MS

o       Figure 4:           Landfill GIS Mapping

o        Figure 5:           Cotton Gin Production

o       Figure 6:           Proportion of Farmers Using Different Litter Types (Page 25)

o       Figure 7:           Frequency of Waste Disposal (Page 32)

Table 9----Counties & Farmers Producing Cotton