BMP testingEnergy crops and whole-crop plants (WCS)

Napier grass — BMP: 35 studies, weighted mean 253 m³ CH₄/t VS

Elephant grass (napier) is a tropical grass with a very high biomass yield, studied as an energy crop. The dataset covers different growth stages, leaf fractions and silage.

rating: goodCH₄ ≈ 54 % (estimate)

Published Updated 3 min readFeedstockData Editorial Team

Photo Salil Kumar Mukherjee / Wikimedia Commons, licence CC BY-SA 4.0, source file; changes: cropping

Weighted mean
253m³ CH₄/t VS
Range
98–372m³ CH₄/t VS
Records
35studies
Publications
6sources
Temperatures
35 °C, 37 °Cof the test

Methane in biogas

Medium methane content · ≈ 5.3 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 2.1 % 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: high (83 m³ CH₄/t); no particular threats to stability. Handling costs: fibres, floating layer.

Why? Rating factors

Potential per tonne +2

  • +2potential 83 m³ CH₄/t fresh matter (BMP 253 × DM 37.8 % × VS 87.2 %)

Process stability 0

  • 0no factors

Handling and costs −0.5

  • −0.5fibres, floating layer — shredding and intensive mixing

Total points: 1.5 · 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 35 studies

Weighted mean Individual records

BMP curves: Napier grassCumulative methane production over time for 35 records and the weighted mean of 253 m³ CH₄/t VS. 35 of the curves are model curves (first-order kinetics).01002003004000510152025303540time [d]m³ CH₄/t VSTong et al. (1990): 288 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 1: 191 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 2: 221 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 3: 231 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 4: 238 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 5: 247 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 6: 248 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 7: 249 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 8: 251 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 9: 255 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 10: 257 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 11: 258 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 12: 260 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 13: 264 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 14: 274 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 15: 291 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 16: 294 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 17: 310 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Dahunsi (2019) · 1: 200 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Dahunsi (2019) · 2: 202 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Gunaseelan (2004) · 1: 342 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Gunaseelan (2004) · 2: 372 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Kouas et al. (2017): 255 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 1: 98 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 2: 103 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 3: 112 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 4: 121 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 5: 123 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 6: 150 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 7: 181 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 8: 189 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 9: 203 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 10: 217 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 11: 218 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 12: 236 m³ CH₄/t VS (model curve)mean253

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 (253); 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.

  • Show the remaining records in the legend (23)

Records and sources

Download CSV
SourceBMP
m³ CH₄/t VS
TemperatureSampleCurve
Tong et al. (1990) DOI28835 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: air driedend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 1 DOI19135 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: none (sample designation in the source: R2)end point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 2 DOI22135 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 3 DOI23135 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: Dried to 20% moisture R9end point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 4 DOI23835 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 5 DOI24735 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: Dried to 20% moisture R5end point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 6 DOI24835 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 7 DOI24935 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 8 DOI25135 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: Dried 40% moisture -R8end point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 9 DOI25535 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: Dried 40% moisture -R3end point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 10 DOI25735 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 11 DOI25835 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 12 DOI26035 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 13 DOI26435 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: Ensiledend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 14 DOI27435 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: none (sample designation in the source: R3)end point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 15 DOI29135 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 16 DOI29435 °C · mesophilicNapier grassend point (model curve)
Chynoweth et al. (1993) · 17 DOI31035 °C · mesophilicNapier grass · pretreatment: Ensiledend point (model curve)
Dahunsi (2019) · 1 DOI20037 °C · mesophilicgrass silage Pennisetum puroureumend point (model curve)
Dahunsi (2019) · 2 DOI20237 °C · mesophilicgrass silage Pennisetum puroureumend point (model curve)
Gunaseelan (2004) · 1 DOI34235 °C · mesophilicNapierGrass Sheathend point (model curve)
Gunaseelan (2004) · 2 DOI37235 °C · mesophilicNapierGrass Laminaend point (model curve)
Kouas et al. (2017) DOI25535 °C · mesophilicnapier grassend point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 1 DOI9837 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 8end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 2 DOI10337 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 8end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 3 DOI11237 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 8end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 4 DOI12137 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 6end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 5 DOI12337 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 6end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 6 DOI15037 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 6end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 7 DOI18137 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 4end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 8 DOI18937 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 4end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 9 DOI20337 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 2end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 10 DOI21737 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 4end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 11 DOI21837 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 2end point (model curve)
Surendra i Khanal (2015) · 12 DOI23637 °C · mesophilicNapier Grass growth stage 2end point (model curve)
Weighted mean253arithmetic mean 227, SD 65

Typical composition

Dry matter (DM)
37.8% (range 16.1–81.5)
Volatile solids (VS)
87.2 % DM (range 80.2–94.9)
Nitrogen
2.1 % DM
C/N ratio
16.4

Median and range of the determinations reported in the publications behind this substrate's BMP records (read from: CROPGEN D4, MY-D); dry matter: 8 determinations, volatile solids: 9 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); Dahunsi (2019); Gunaseelan (2004); Surendra et al. (2015).

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

  • seasonal
  • fibrous
  • editorial classification

Advantages

  • Methane potential in the database: weighted mean 253 m³ CH₄/t VS (median 238; range 98–372; 35 records from 6 sources).
  • The best-described tropical grass (35 records): Surendra 2015 shows that yield falls with maturity (2-month-old 219 vs 8-month-old 104 m³/t VS) and that a 6 mm sieve gives higher yields than 10 and 20 mm.

Drawbacks and risks

  • Late harvest drastically lowers yield (Surendra 2015).

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

Dosing

No source-based dose limits.

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

What it is and where it comes from

Elephant grass (napier grass, Pennisetum purpureum, now also Cenchrus purpureus) is a perennial tropical grass reaching several metres in height. It is grown as fodder in Africa, Asia and America, and in biogas research it is regarded as one of the highest-yielding energy crops. The dataset contains several dozen records from several studies, including an American programme from the 1990s, a study describing successive growth stages and fractions (leaf blade and leaf sheath) and silage, under conditions of 35 to 37 °C.

Properties relevant to digestion

The biomass of elephant grass is very variable depending on age: young shoots are succulent and easily digestible, and mature ones lignified and rich in lignin. An increase in fibre content reduces the rate of hydrolysis. The protein content is low, so the C/N ratio is high. The green biomass has a high moisture content and spoils quickly, so ensiling is used. It is a C4 grass with a lot of silica in the leaves, which increases the abrasiveness for equipment. Chopping is essential, and mixing with slurry improves the nitrogen balance.

How to read the spread of results

The greatest influence is the growth stage at harvest, visible in the study that compares successive stages. Further influences are the fraction (blades, sheaths, whole plant), the form of the material (fresh matter, silage), variety, fertilisation and climate. Some records come from one series, so they are not independent. Added to this are the test parameters: inoculum, substrate-to-inoculum ratio and incubation length. A single result therefore refers to a specific stage or fraction, and not to the whole category.

In biogas plant practice

In Polish conditions elephant grass is not available as a local substrate, because it does not overwinter. It is an important reference point for other energy grasses and a substrate in tropical regions, where its yields allow several cuts per year. It is harvested at the stage before full lignification, chopped and ensiled. In the ration, like other grasses, it requires mixing and nitrogen supplementation. The basis for a decision should be a BMP test with a description of the harvest stage.

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 = 0.085 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 (4) — excluded from the mean
SourceBMP
m³ CH₄/t VS
PretreatmentSample
Dahunsi (2019)312physicalgrass silage Pennisetum puroureum
Dahunsi (2019)320physicalgrass silage Pennisetum puroureum
Dahunsi (2019)387physicalgrass silage Pennisetum puroureum
Dahunsi (2019)366physicalgrass silage Pennisetum puroureum

Bibliography

  1. 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
  2. Chynoweth, D.; Turick, C.; Owens, J.; Jerger, D.; Peck, M. (1993). Biochemical methane potential of biomass and waste feedstocks. Biomass and Bioenergy 5(1), 95–111. DOI: 10.1016/0961-9534(93)90010-2 DOI
  3. Dahunsi, S. (2019). Mechanical pretreatment of lignocelluloses for enhanced biogas production: Methane yield prediction from biomass structural components. Bioresource Technology 280, 18–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2019.02.006 DOI
  4. Gunaseelan, V. (2004). Biochemical methane potential of fruits and vegetable solid waste feedstocks. Biomass and Bioenergy 26(4), 389–399. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2003.08.006 DOI
  5. Kouas, M.; Torrijos, M.; Sousbie, P.; Steyer, J.P.; Sayadi, S.; Harmand, J. (2017). Robust assessment of both biochemical methane potential and degradation kinetics of solid residues in successive batches. Waste Management 70, 59–70. DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.001 DOI
  6. Surendra, K.; Khanal, S.K. (2015). Effects of crop maturity and size reduction on digestibility and methane yield of dedicated energy crop. Bioresource Technology 178, 187–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.055 DOI

All sources of the site: bibliography.