About usContact

BMP testingStraws and crop residues

Maize stover — BMP: 10 studies, weighted mean 298 m³ CH₄/t VS

Maize stover consists of stalks, leaves and cob husks left after grain harvest. Bulky and lignocellulosic, it is sometimes contaminated with soil and requires chopping before digestion.

rating: goodCH₄ ≈ 52 % (estimate)

Published Updated 3 min readFeedstockData Editorial Team

Photo Royalbroil / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY-SA 3.0, source file; changes: cropping

Weighted mean
298m³ CH₄/t VS
Range
241–417m³ CH₄/t VS
Records
10studies
Publications
7sources
Temperatures
35 °C, 37 °C, 38 °C, 40 °Cof the test

Methane in biogas

Medium methane content · ≈ 5.2 kWh/m³ of biogas

estimate from the substrate type The collected studies contain no measurement. The interval follows from the approximate composition (protein from total nitrogen (N 1.2 % DM × 6.25)) and the yields of compound groups according to FNR.

How we calculate it and what the zones mean

Rating for biogas plants

good — editorial rating for biogas plantsStable, usually accepted without a fee

Potential per tonne of fresh matter: very high (235 m³ CH₄/t); no particular threats to stability. Handling costs: fibres, floating layer, slow degradation.

Why? Rating factors

Potential per tonne +3

  • +3potential 235 m³ CH₄/t fresh matter (BMP 298 × DM 84.9 % × VS 93 %)

Process stability 0

  • 0no factors

Handling and costs −1

  • −0.5fibres, floating layer — shredding and intensive mixing
  • −0.5slow degradation — long retention time

Total points: 2 · thresholds: ≥ 2.5 very good, ≥ 1 good, below — neutral; negative with cumulative process risk.

Editorial rating per the methodology · confidence of the rating: high · excluding market prices

Add to the co-digestion calculator CSV data

BMP curves from 10 studies

Weighted mean Individual records

BMP curves: Maize stoverCumulative methane production over time for 10 records and the weighted mean of 298 m³ CH₄/t VS. 10 of the curves are model curves (first-order kinetics).0100200300400500051015202530time [d]m³ CH₄/t VSFernández-Rodríguez et al. (2022): 256 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Tong et al. (1990): 360 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 1: 279 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Lallement et al. (2023) · 2: 286 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Li et al. (2013): 241 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)López-Dávila et al. (2022): 417 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Menardo et al. (2012) · 1: 246 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Menardo et al. (2012) · 2: 254 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Menardo et al. (2012) · 3: 272 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chevalier et al. (2023): 272 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)mean298

Dashed lines are a model curve (first-order kinetics, B(t) = B₀·(1 − e−kt)); the end point comes from the publication. All curves are model curves.

Cumulative methane production over the test [m³ CH₄/t VS]. The thick line is the weighted mean of all records (298); dots mark the end values given in the publications. Point at the chart to read values; click a legend item to hide or show a record.

Records and sources

Download CSV
SourceBMP
m³ CH₄/t VS		TemperatureSampleCurve
Fernández-Rodríguez et al. (2022) DOI25638 °C · mesophilicuntreated corn stoverend point (model curve)
Tong et al. (1990) DOI36035 °C · mesophilicCorn (stover) · pretreatment: air driedend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 1 DOI27938 °C · mesophilicmaize residuesend point (model curve)
Lallement et al. (2023) · 2 DOI28638 °C · mesophilicmaize leafend point (model curve)
Li et al. (2013) DOI24137 °C · mesophilicCorn stoverend point (model curve)
López-Dávila et al. (2022) DOI417—Corn strawend point (model curve)
Menardo et al. (2012) · 1 DOI24640 °C · mesophilicMaize stalksend point (model curve)
Menardo et al. (2012) · 2 DOI25440 °C · mesophilicMaize stalks · pretreatment: particle size reduction/sample preparation (MY-D: physical treatment)end point (model curve)
Menardo et al. (2012) · 3 DOI27240 °C · mesophilicMaize stalks · pretreatment: particle size reduction/sample preparation (MY-D: physical treatment)end point (model curve)
Chevalier et al. (2023) DOI272—Corn stover (CS), milled control (CM)end point (model curve)
Weighted mean298arithmetic mean 288, SD 56

Typical composition

Dry matter (DM)
84.9% (range 37.8–89.6)
Volatile solids (VS)
93 % DM (range 89–97)
Nitrogen
1.2 % DM
C/N ratio
43.6

Median and range of the determinations reported in the publications behind this substrate's BMP records (read from: CROPGEN D4, MY-D); dry matter: 5 determinations, volatile solids: 5 determinations. C/N was calculated as the ratio of C and N content (% DM) from the same source. The DM range includes fresh samples as well as samples partly dried or dried before the test – for fresh material the lower part of the range applies, ideally your own measurement.

Sources: Tong et al. (1990); Lallement et al. (2023); Li et al. (2013); Menardo et al. (2012).

The composition of the raw material varies between batches — for plant calculations use an analysis of your own sample. The calculator inserts typical values automatically.

Process properties

  • fibrous
  • slowly degrading
  • carbon-rich
  • low in nitrogen
  • seasonal
  • forms a floating layer
  • editorial classification

Advantages

  • Methane potential in the database: weighted mean 298 m³ CH₄/t VS (median 272; range 241–417; 10 records from 7 sources).
  • Pretreatment (e.g. extrusion, Chevalier 2023) improves results.

Drawbacks and risks

  • Spread of results in the database: standard deviation 56 at a mean of 288 m³ CH₄/t VS (10 records from 7 sources).

Co-digestion — what to combine it with, what to watch out for

Dosing

No source-based dose limits; in practice as an additive to mixes with slurry after size reduction.

Practical requirements

  • Control floating crust and sediment: when solids are fed directly into the digester, the risk of their formation depends on the substrate (FNR 2010, Ch. 3).
  • Size reduction or extrusion (Chevalier 2023)

Sources of the process data

  1. Weiland, P. (2010) Biogas production: current state and perspectives. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
  2. Menardo, S.; Airoldi, G.; Balsari, P. (2012) The effect of particle size and thermal pre-treatment on the methane yield of four agricultural by-products. Bioresource Technology 104, 708–714
  3. Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Liu, G.; Chen, C.; He, Y.; Liu, X. (2013) Comparison of methane production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Bioresource Technology 149, 565–569
  4. Fernández-Rodríguez, M.J.; Mushtaq, M.; Tian, L.; Jiménez-Rodríguez, A.; Rincón, B.; Gilroyed, B.H.; Borja, R. (2022) Evaluation and modelling of methane production from corn stover pretreated with various physicochemical techniques. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy 40(6), 698–705
  5. Tong, X.; Smith, L.H.; McCarty, P.L. (1990) Methane fermentation of selected lignocellulosic materials. Biomass 21(4), 239–255
  6. Hendriks, A.T.W.M.; Zeeman, G. (2009) Pretreatments to enhance the digestibility of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresource Technology
  7. Lallement, A.; Peyrelasse, C.; Lagnet, C.; Barakat, A.; Schraauwers, B.; Maunas, S.; Monlau, F. (2023) A Detailed Database of the Chemical Properties and Methane Potential of Biomasses Covering a Large Range of Common Agricultural Biogas Plant Feedstocks. Waste 1(1), 195–227
  8. López-Dávila, E.; Jiménez Hernández, J.; López González, L.M.; Barrera Cardoso, E.L.; Bravo Amarante, E.; Contreras Velázquez, L.M.; Romero-Romero, O. (2022) Biochemical methane potential of agro-wastes as a renewable source alternative for electrical energy production in Cuba. Ciencia & Tecnología Agropecuaria 23(1)
  9. Chevalier, A.; Evon, P.; Monlau, F.; Vandenbossche, V.; Sambusiti, C. (2023) Twin-Screw Extrusion Mechanical Pretreatment for Enhancing Biomethane Production from Agro-Industrial, Agricultural and Catch Crop Biomasses. Waste 1(2), 497–514
  10. FNR (2010). Guía sobre el Biogás – Desde la producción hasta el uso (hiszp. wydanie „Leitfaden Biogas”, GIZ 2013)

The co-digestion calculator will assess a specific mixture containing this substrate.

What it is and where it comes from

Maize stover (corn stover or maize stover) is the above-ground part of maize remaining after the grain harvest: stalks, leaves, cob husks and cob tips. It occurs in large quantities wherever maize is grown for grain, including in Poland. It is distinguished from whole-crop silage, in which the cobs are also harvested. Collecting the stover requires separate equipment and entails costs, and leaving it in the field matters for soil organic matter.

Properties relevant to digestion

Maize stover is lignocellulosic: it contains cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignin, with the leaves being more accessible than the lignified stalks. Moisture after the grain harvest is often high, which makes storage in dry form difficult. Ensiling is possible if the material is not over-dried. The C/N ratio is high, so the ration requires supplementation with nitrogen-rich substrates. Common problems are contamination with soil, fungal infestation of the residues (including fungi producing mycotoxins) and scum in the chamber with insufficient chopping.

How to read the spread of results

The records in the dataset come from several publications, including one in which the sample was described as maize leaves, and others in which whole post-harvest residues or material without pretreatment were studied. The fractions (leaves, stalks, husks) differ in digestibility, so their proportion in the sample affects the result. Further influences are variety and plant maturity, the method of harvesting, chopping, temperature and the quality of the inoculum. A compilation of results from different studies is therefore not a comparison of identical materials.

In biogas plant practice

At an agricultural biogas plant, maize stover can be a supplementary substrate, particularly if the farm has a surplus of it anyway. The main challenges are the cost of harvesting and transport and the logistics of storage. It is worth using chopping and, where needed, co-ensiling with a moister material. Leaving part of the residues in the field is recommended for soil protection, so not the whole quantity is available for collection. The energy yield of a batch should be verified with a BMP test, and the effect on process stability tracked through analysis of volatile fatty acids.

Methodology in brief

BMP is the amount of methane obtained from volatile solids (VS) in a batch test, given in m³ CH₄ per tonne of VS (numerically the same as NmL CH₄/g VS in the publications) and converted to normal conditions (0 °C, 101.325 kPa). The weighted mean gives each publication a total weight of 1, split equally between its results for the substrate — a paper testing twenty varieties does not outweigh a paper with a single sample. In inter-laboratory programmes the unit is the laboratory (total weight 1), and within it the weight of a test grows with the number of bottles (replicates). Results after pretreatment (e.g. thermal, chemical, enzymatic) are shown separately and are not included in the mean.

Solid lines are curves measured in the tests. Where a publication gives only the final result, we draw a first-order kinetic model, B(t) = B₀·(1 − e−kt): only the end point comes from the publication, and the shape of the curve serves purely as visualisation — do not read the production on a particular day from it. For this substrate k = 0.136 d−1 was assumed (median of rate constants k reported in the sources and/or fitted to the mean measured curves).

The statistics describe the spread of published results — a descriptive compilation, not a meta-analysis or a guarantee of plant yield.

Full methodology and correction policy

Results after pretreatment (1) — excluded from the mean
SourceBMP
m³ CH₄/t VS		PretreatmentSample
Menardo et al. (2012)267unspecifiedMaize stalks

Bibliography

  1. Fernández-Rodríguez, M.J.; Mushtaq, M.; Tian, L.; Jiménez-Rodríguez, A.; Rincón, B.; Gilroyed, B.H.; Borja, R. (2022). Evaluation and modelling of methane production from corn stover pretreated with various physicochemical techniques. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy 40(6), 698–705. DOI: 10.1177/0734242x211038185 DOI
  2. Tong, X.; Smith, L.H.; McCarty, P.L. (1990). Methane fermentation of selected lignocellulosic materials. Biomass 21(4), 239–255. DOI: 10.1016/0144-4565(90)90075-u DOI
  3. Lallement, A.; Peyrelasse, C.; Lagnet, C.; Barakat, A.; Schraauwers, B.; Maunas, S.; Monlau, F. (2023). A Detailed Database of the Chemical Properties and Methane Potential of Biomasses Covering a Large Range of Common Agricultural Biogas Plant Feedstocks. Waste 1(1), 195–227. DOI: 10.3390/waste1010014 DOI
  4. Li, Y.; Zhang, R.; Liu, G.; Chen, C.; He, Y.; Liu, X. (2013). Comparison of methane production potential, biodegradability, and kinetics of different organic substrates. Bioresource Technology 149, 565–569. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.09.063 DOI
  5. López-Dávila, E.; Jiménez Hernández, J.; López González, L.M.; Barrera Cardoso, E.L.; Bravo Amarante, E.; Contreras Velázquez, L.M.; Romero-Romero, O. (2022). Biochemical methane potential of agro-wastes as a renewable source alternative for electrical energy production in Cuba. Ciencia & Tecnología Agropecuaria 23(1). DOI: 10.21930/rcta.vol23_num1_art:1890 DOI
  6. Menardo, S.; Airoldi, G.; Balsari, P. (2012). The effect of particle size and thermal pre-treatment on the methane yield of four agricultural by-products. Bioresource Technology 104, 708–714. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2011.10.061 DOI
  7. Chevalier, A.; Evon, P.; Monlau, F.; Vandenbossche, V.; Sambusiti, C. (2023). Twin-Screw Extrusion Mechanical Pretreatment for Enhancing Biomethane Production from Agro-Industrial, Agricultural and Catch Crop Biomasses. Waste 1(2), 497–514. DOI: 10.3390/waste1020030 DOI

All sources of the site: bibliography.

Other substrates in the group “Straws and crop residues”