Next Article in Journal
Investigation and Analysis of the Power Quality in an Academic Institution’s Electrical Distribution System
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Erosion Flow Pattern Study of Pelton Runner Buckets Using a Non-Recirculating Test Rig
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 17
Issue 16
10.3390/en17164008
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Quality of Jerusalem Artichoke Biomass Harvested Twice during the Growing Season in North-Eastern Poland

by
Bożena Bogucka
and
Bogdan Dubis
*
Department of Agrotechnology and Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 8, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(16), 4008; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17164008
Submission received: 24 June 2024 / Revised: 22 July 2024 / Accepted: 8 August 2024 / Published: 13 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section A4: Bio-Energy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Jerusalem artichoke (JA) (Helianthus tuberosus L., family Asteraceae) is an important feedstock for biofuel production due to its high biomass yield per unit area and the low costs associated with plantation establishment and cultivation technology. The chemical composition of the aerial biomass of JA grown in a perennial cycle and harvested once or twice during the growing season was determined, to assess the potential of JA for energy production. The experiment was conducted in 2018–2020 in north-eastern Poland. The study demonstrated that the crude ash (CA) content of the biomass was significantly (by 24.1%) higher when JA was harvested twice rather than once during the growing season, making it less suitable for energy purposes. However, double cutting induced an increase in the content of crude fiber (CFR), cellulose, and hemicellulose (by 87%, 41%, and 52%, respectively) in JA biomass compared with single cutting. In addition, twice-harvested JA biomass was also characterized by higher concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) (by 40.7%, 38.9%, and 30.3%, respectively), and a lower (by 29.3%) concentration of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC). These results indicate that the chemical composition of a JA biomass can be modified by selecting the appropriate harvest strategy, which is an important consideration for end users.

1. Introduction

According to the World Energy Council’s scenario, energy consumption will double by 2050, increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions and exacerbating the greenhouse effect. New sources of energy are therefore being sought, as the world is running out of fossil fuel reserves [1]. The production of renewable and sustainable energy based on plant biomass from energy crops or crop production residues appears to be the most promising option [2]. Biomass for energy production can be obtained from three groups of plants: fast-growing shrubs and trees (Salix viminalis L., Populus balsamifera L.), herbaceous crops (Sida hermaphrodita Rusby L., Helianthus tuberosus L.), and grasses (Miscanthus × giganteus J.M. Greef and M. Deuter, M. sacchariflorus Maxim. Hack.) [3].
European agriculture supplies around 9% of the biomass for energy purposes (direct combustion or anaerobic digestion in agricultural biogas plants). The product of anaerobic digestion is biogas, which is produced from organic compounds such as lignocellulose [4,5]. Lignocellulosic energy crops are characterized by high biomass yields in all agroecological zones across Europe, and they do not compete with food crops [6]. Aerial biomass can be used as solid biofuel (pellets) for heat and energy production through combustion, as well as for the production of gaseous and liquid transport biofuels (biogas, bioethanol), depending on the chemical composition of lignocellulose [7,8,9].
Jerusalem artichoke (JA) (Helianthus tuberosus L.) is a crop species with a high potential for bioenergy production [9,10,11,12]. This herbaceous plant of the family Astereceae is native to North America. At present, natural JA sites can be found in both Americas, Europe, and Asia [13]. In Europe, JA has been cultivated in northern Norway and Sweden and, in Asia, even in Siberia. The length of annual shoots can reach 4 m, depending on soil and climatic conditions. The short photoperiod reduces stem length and stem dry matter (DM) content [14]. Stems account for 70%, leaves-for 20%, and inflorescences-for 10% of JA aerial biomass. Stem height increases during the first five months of growth, which promotes DM accumulation in late cultivars [9,15]. The growing season of JA lasts from mid-April to mid-November [16,17]. Aerial plant parts dry out and die in fall in early cultivars, but they can persist until winter in late cultivars [18]. The costs associated with JA plantation establishment and management are low because this crop can be grown in both annual and perennial cycles, has low fertilizer and pesticide requirements, is well adapted to various environmental conditions, is tolerant of abiotic stresses [19], and has high biomass yield potential [1,10,20,21,22]. The yield potential of new cultivars is the outcome of genetic traits and agronomic factors [9,14,23,24]. The fresh matter yield (FMY) of JA aerial biomass ranges from 37 Mg ha−1 to 111 Mg ha−1 [25,26,27,28,29], and the dry matter yield (DMY) ranges from 11 Mg ha−1 to 35 Mg ha−1 [28,29,30,31,32]. Due to its high production potential and a high content of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin in biomass, JA is a valuable feedstock for the production of solid fuels [17,26], biogas [4,11,33] and bioethanol [9,21,32,34]. In addition, JA aerial biomass can be processed into bioproducts in refineries [9,32,33,35,36].
The energy value of JA biomass is the outcome of yield and heating value. The heating value of the aerial biomass of energy crops is determined by moisture content, which may vary depending on harvest date and conditions. JA herbage for biogas fermentation should be harvested in late fall or early winter. At the end of the growing season, the plants dry out and the moisture content of straw decreases from then on. As a result, biomass is partly dried, which increases the heating value and heat of combustion [7,37,38]. The optimal moisture content of biomass for energy production is up to 15% [34,39]. JA herbage for biogas production can be cut three or four times between June and November, with the use of machines intended for maize harvest [4,29,30,40,41]. Liebhard et al. [4] reported that the DM content of JA biomass increased during successive harvests, from July to October, which decreased biogas production by around 30%. In a study by Maj et al. [11], biogas production from JA biomass ranged from 3000 to 5000 m3 ha−1, compared with 6050 to 6750 m3 ha−1 from maize (Zea mays L.). Thus, JA can be used for anaerobic digestion, which is a source of renewable energy in the form of biogas, generated at low inputs [9].
An average JA plantation can produce 88.4 to 377.1 GJ ha−1 energy during the first year of cultivation [29,31,42,43], compared with 145 to 404 GJ ha−1 energy per year for maize [11]. In the work of Stolarski et al. [3], heating value varied depending on harvest date (harvest was carried out three times a year, in November, January, and March); the higher heating value (HHV) of JA reached 19.3 MJ kg−1 DM at the third harvest date, and it was higher than the HHV of semi-wood biomass in other herbaceous species (Helianthus salicifolius A.Dietr; Sida hermaphrodita Rusby L.; Silphium perfoliatum L.; Reynoutria sachalinensis Nakai; R. japonica Houtt.). In another experiment [7], the average calorific value was 18.5 MJ kg−1 in monocotyledonous plants (grasses, cereal straw, and reed), 19.2 MJ kg−1 in deciduous and coniferous wood, 18.8 MJ kg−1 in willow, and around 19.5 MJ kg−1 DM in JA.
Due to a wide diversity of biomass sources for energy production, the chemical composition of biomass harvested in different growth stages is an important consideration [24,44,45]. Biomass is usually harvested once a year in late fall, at the end of the growing season, in winter or early spring. The optimal harvest date is determined based on local environmental conditions, genotype, and the intended use of the biomass. However, due to its specific physiological characteristics, JA can be harvested twice or more times during the growing season [23]. In view of energy efficiency, double cutting is recommended when biomass is to be used as a source of biogas, but it generally results in lower biomass yield and quality. In bioenergy production, it is more difficult to hydrolyze lignocellulosic biomass than starch [46]. In comparison with other crops used for bioethanol production, JA has a lower content of cellulose and hemicelluloses, and similar lignin content [2,32,47,48]. The effect of harvest date and frequency on the chemical composition of biomass should be determined to select the most suitable energy crops and maximize the cellulose content (>30%) of aboveground plant parts.
The influence of a double-cut harvest strategy on the chemical composition of JA aerial biomass grown in a perennial cropping system has not been investigated in the literature to date. This study contributes to the filling of this research gap by identifying the most efficient (advantageous) method of JA plantation management under the agroecological conditions of north-eastern Poland (Central–Eastern Europe) in order to use aerial biomass for the production of various low-emission fuels (Figure 1). Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the content of major chemical components, important for energy production, in the aerial biomass of JA grown as a perennial crop and harvested once or twice during the growing season. The chemical composition of JA biomass was analyzed by determining the content of crude fiber (CFR), cellulose, hemicellulose, carbohydrate fractions, crude ash (CA), crude fat (CF), crude protein (CP), and water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

A field experiment with JA was conducted in north-eastern Poland, at the Agricultural Experiment Station (AES) in Bałcyny (53°35′46.4″ N, 19°51′19.5″ E, altitude 137 m), owned by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, in 2018–2020. The experiment was established on Haplic Luvisol derived from boulder clay (IUSS Working Group WRB, 2015) [49], characterized by acidity at a pH of 5.2 in 1 M KCL and the following content of plant-available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and magnesium (Mg): 47, 108, and 66 mg kg−1 soil, respectively. Soil pH was measured with a digital pH meter, the P content of soil was determined using the colorimetric method (UV-1201V spectrophotometer, Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), K content using atomic emission spectrometry (AES) (BWB Technologies UK Ltd., Flame Photometers), and Mg content via atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) (AAS1N, Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) (Houba et al., 1995) [50].
The experiment had a randomized block design (RBD) with three replications. The experimental factor was the date of the harvest of the aerial biomass of JA cv. Medius: (i) end of August (single cutting during the growing season); (ii) end of June and end of October (double cutting during the growing season) (Figure 2).
The preceding crop was Brassica napus (L.) and, after it had been harvested, skimming and fall plowing were carried out. The soil was loosened using a cultivator in spring. Before planting JA tubers, and at the beginning of spring growth (years 2 and 3), mineral NPK fertilizers were applied at 80 kg N ha−1 (ammonium nitrate, 34%), 70 kg P2O5 ha−1 (enriched superphosphate, 40%), and 150 kg K2O ha−1 (potash salt, 60%). In the year of plantation establishment (2018), JA tubers were planted at the end of April (depth: 6–8 cm, spacing: 75 × 30 cm). In the remaining two years of the study, aerial biomass was produced by tubers left in the soil for two subsequent growing seasons. In each growing season, weeds were mechanically controlled by hilling, which was carried out twice. Aerial biomass was mechanically harvested after 60 and 180 days of growth (double cutting) and after 120 days (single cutting).

2.2. Analyses

Sample Preparation

Samples of JA aerial biomass (stems + leaves) of around 1 kg were cut into 0.5 cm cubes. The cubes were dried in a ventilated oven (FD 53 Binder GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany) at a temperature of 65–70 °C for 10 h, until they reached a constant weight. The samples were pulverized in a laboratory grinder (Knife Mill SM 100, Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) to a 1–2 mm particle size, vacuum-packaged, and stored until the analyses.
Biomass yield and DM content were described in detail by Bogucka B., Jankowski K.J. [29]. Further samples were prepared as follows:
Crude ash (CA)—air-dried samples were incinerated (analytical samples of 5 g) in a muffle furnace (FCF 22SM, CZYLOK, Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Poland) at a temperature of 500–550 °C for 5–6 h (sample weight was determined before and after incineration).
Crude protein (CP)—Kjeldahl method; sample mineralization was used (sample incineration in the presence of catalysts; copper (II) sulfate pentahydrate and potassium sulfate, at a temperature of 420 °C, under a condenser), followed by distillation of ammonia nitrogen (N) and determination of total N (ammonium borate) by titration with hydrochloric acid solution. Crude protein content was determined based on total N content, determined using the Kjeldahl method and converted to crude protein (N x 6.25); automatic KjeltecTM 8400 analyzer with 8420 autosampler, FOSS, Hilleroed, Denmark [51].
Crude fat (CF)—extraction method; analytical air-dried ground samples (1 g) were extracted with ethyl ether in a Soxhlet fat extraction unit over a period of 6–8 h until fat was completely eluted. Ether was distilled off from the extract (in the extraction unit), and the residue in the form of CF (ether extract) was dried in an oven and weighed; Soxtec System 2043 Extraction Unit, FOSS, Höganäs, Sweden [52].
Crude fiber (CFR)—classic Henneberg-Stohmann method; samples (up to 1 g) were boiled successively in a solution of sulfuric acid and potassium hydroxide, the residue was rinsed with acetone (degreasing) and dried, weighed, incinerated, and weighed again. Crude fiber consists of a part of hemicelluloses and cellulose, lignin, cutin, suberin, and silica; FIBERTECTM 8000, FOSS, Hilleroed, Denmark [53].
Structural carbohydrate fractions (NDF—neutral detergent fiber, ADF—acid detergent fiber, ADL—acid detergent lignin)—method of Van Soest et al. [54]; ANKOM 220 fiber analyzer (ANKOM Technology Corp., Macedon, NY, USA).
Water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC)—anthrone (spectrophotometric) method. In air-dried samples, saccharides were dehydrated by heating with concentrated sulfuric acid. Furfural formed from pentoses and 5-hydroxymethylfurfural formed from hexoses reacted with anthrone to produce a colored solution. Color intensity (proportional to saccharide concentration) was measured using spectrophotometry at a wavelength of λ = 620 nm; Epoll-20 photometer, Poland [55].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data (RA, CP, RF, CF, NDF, ADF, ADL, WSC) were processed via analysis of variance (ANOVA), where harvest strategy was the fixed factor, and years of cultivation and replicates were repeated factors. Treatment means were compared based on the honest significant difference (HSD) in Tukey’s test. All analyses were performed in the Statistica 13.3 program [56]. The F-values of ANOVA are presented in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Weather Conditions

JA prefers regions with precipitation from 310 to 2820 mm y−1. However, optimum growth is observed at evenly distributed rainfall of up to 1250 mm y−1. JA tolerates short periods of flooding. The optimum temperature range for the vegetative growth of JA is 20 to 35 °C [9,57]. In the first year of the study (2018, plantation establishment), the mean monthly temperature during the growing season did not exceed 20.4 °C (Table 2), and precipitation reached 379 mm. Above-average precipitation (140 mm) was recorded only in July 2018, when the water supply exceeded JA’s requirements by 44% [29]. In May, June, August, and September, precipitation was 34%, 14%, 61%, and 42% below the optimal level for JA cultivation, respectively. In the second year of the study (2019), the average monthly temperature during the growing season did not exceed 21.0 °C, and June was a particularly warm month. During the 2019 growing season, precipitation reached 460 mm, and it was unevenly distributed. There was a dry spell in April and, in July and August, rainfall was 12% and 19% below JA’s water requirements, respectively. In May, June, and September, precipitation exceeded JA’s water needs by 56%, 24%, and 68%, respectively. In the third year (2020), the mean monthly temperature during the growing season did not exceed 19.1 °C, and precipitation was recorded at 423 mm. In June and August 2020, the water demand of JA was exceeded by 34% and 35%, respectively. In July and September, precipitation was 60% and 36% below JA’s water requirements, respectively.

3.2. Chemical Composition of JA Biomass

3.2.1. Crude Ash Content

The CA content of JA aerial biomass ranged from 4.96% to 9.00% DM (Table 3). Crude ash content was higher in 2018 and 2020 than in 2019, as well as in biomass harvested twice rather than once during the growing season. A highly significant interaction was found between the years of the study and the harvest date. Crude ash content (DM basis) was highest in 2020 in JA biomass harvested in June and October (ii), and lowest in 2019 in JA biomass harvested in August (i). In a study by Stolarski et al. [45], CA content was lower in JA biomass harvested in October, compared with June. According to Ivanova et al. [1], the CA content of JA biomass may reach 10%, which is consistent with the findings of Gunnarsson et al. [32] in whose study the CA content of JA biomass ranged from 8.1% to 10.2%. Similar values (8.2–10.5%) were reported by Kocsis et al. [58] for the aerial biomass of different JA cultivars, harvested once in October. Sawicka et al. [17] tested six JA cultivars whose biomass contained 6.10–6.80% CA, compared with 8.5% in the work of Stolarski et al. [45]. A considerably lower CA content of JA biomass was noted by Wróblewska et al. [59] and Smoliński et al. [60], at 2.5% and 3.18%, respectively. The concentration of CA (minerals) in plant biomass may vary widely depending on genetic and environmental factors [61]. In JA, leaves are usually richer in CA than stems, which should be taken into account when selecting the optimal harvest date [62]. High CA content leads to high dust emission and negatively affects combustion efficiency, and calorific value is highest at the lowest CA content, which ranged from 1.82% to 4.07% in selected plant species [1]. Cassida et al. [63] demonstrated that the calorific value of raw material is negatively correlated with CA content, because the calorific value decreases by 0.2 MJ kg−1 with every 1% increase in CA concentration in biomass. According to Czeczko [38], a high content of CA and moisture in plant biomass is undesirable, and it is significantly influenced by harvest date and conditions. In the cited study [38], JA had low CA content, comparable to that of Miscanthus × giganteus J.M. Greef and M. Deuter (2.51% vs. 2.10%). According to Li et al. [35], straw is high-quality feedstock for bioenergy production because it has low CA content. Biomass ash has a relatively low melting point, which can lead to slagging and the contamination of combustion chambers and boilers [64]. Research has shown that not only moisture content but also CA content decreases (from 3.34% through 2.30% to 1.80%) with delayed harvest, which improves biofuel quality [35,65]. Ash concentration in biomass decreases in successive plant maturity stages [44,66,67] due to the natural dilution process when biomass increases and organic matter production exceeds mineral uptake. Another reason is the increased proportion of stems [44] whose CA content is lower than that of leaves [57]. In this study, CA content was lower in JA biomass harvested only once in August. Double cutting significantly increased CA concentration in biomass. Farzinmehr et al. [44] also found that the CA content of JA biomass was higher (12–16%) at a higher harvest frequency during the growing season.

3.2.2. Crude Protein Content

The CP content of JA aerial biomass ranged from 5.26% to 9.60% DM (Table 4). Crude protein content was higher in 2018 and 2019 than in 2020, as well as in biomass harvested twice rather than once during the growing season. A highly significant interaction was found between the years of the study and the harvest date. Crude protein content (DM basis) was lowest in 2020 in JA biomass harvested only once in August (i). Similar CP concentrations in JA biomass were noted at the remaining harvest dates and in the remaining years. Similar values (5.7–9%) were reported by Kocsis et al. [58] and Farzinmehr et al. [44] for the aerial biomass of different JA cultivars, harvested once in October. In a study by Gunnarsson et al. [32], the CP content of JA biomass ranged from 1.1% to 5.8%, and higher amounts of CP were accumulated in tubers. Similar CP concentration in JA biomass (1.1–6.1%) was observed by Johansson et al. [33]. In turn, Kaszás et al. [36] found no significant differences in the CP content of JA aerial biomass harvested in June and August. Seiler [68] demonstrated that CP concentration in JA plants decreased by 33% between the vegetative stage and the flowering stage, and that therefore stems should be harvested before the aging and senescence of the bottom leaves. According to Farzinmehr et al. [44], the negative effect of JA maturity on CP concentration in biomass could result from the increased stem to leaf ratio because stems contain less CP than leaves. Malmberg and Theander [69] and Kaszás et al. [36] reported that CP content was three times higher in JA leaves than in stems. Another reason for the observed decrease in the CP content of JA biomass could be the fact that CP concentration decreases in leaves with plant maturity [57]. In a study by Farzinmehr et al. [44], CP content was lowest in JA leaves harvested in late fall, when insufficient heat and sunlight contribute to lower N accumulation in plants [70]. In previous studies [71,72,73], CP concentration in JA biomass varied considerably (4.1% to 16.7% DM) depending on plant maturity stage, environmental and climatic conditions, season, soil type, and production technology [70,74], which is consistent with the results of this study.

3.2.3. Crude Fat Content

The CF content of JA aerial biomass ranged from 0.63% to 1.10% DM (Table 5), and a highly significant interaction was observed between the years of the study and the harvest date. Crude fat content was highest in 2019 in JA biomass harvested only once in August (i), and lowest in 2019 in JA biomass harvested twice (ii), and in 2020 in JA biomass harvested once (i). Kocsis et al. [58] and Gunnarsson et al. [32] found that CF content was highest in JA biomass harvested in September and October, in the range of 2.5% to 3.8%, depending on cultivar. In the current experiment, CF concentration in JA biomass did not differ significantly across harvest dates and frequencies, and the noted differences did not exceed 1%.

3.2.4. Crude Fiber Content

The CFR content of JA aerial biomass ranged from 16.73% to 29.97% DM (Table 6). Crude fiber content was higher in 2018 than in 2019 and 2020, as well as in biomass harvested twice rather than once during the growing season. A highly significant interaction was observed between the years of the study and the harvest date. Crude fiber content was highest in 2018 and 2019 in JA biomass harvested in June and October (ii), and lowest in 2019 and 2020 in JA biomass harvested only once in August (i). According to Wyss and Vogel [75], the concentrations of DM and CFR increase with plant growth and development. In a study by Gunnarsson et al. [32], the CFR content of JA biomass ranged from 10.8% to 21.1%. Similar CFR concentration (11.2–23.4%) in the aerial biomass of different JA cultivars was reported by Kocsis et al. [58]. In this experiment, the CF content of JA biomass was higher, in particular when the double-cut harvest strategy was applied.

3.2.5. Structural Carbohydrate Content

The JA aerial biomass contained 21.27% to 42.40% of cellulose, and 2.69% to 8.97% of hemicelluloses (Table 7 and Table 8), and these values varied across seasons and harvest dates. The concentrations of cellulose and hemicelluloses were highest in JA biomass harvested twice (ii) in 2018. The biomass harvested in June and October (ii) contained higher amounts of cellulose and hemicelluloses (by 41% and 52%) than the biomass harvested only once in August (i). The harvest date of herbaceous plants, including JA, also had a significant effect on the concentrations of cellulose and hemicelluloses in the work of Stolarski et al. [45], who found that the cellulose content of the aerial biomass of JA and other dicotyledonous plants generally increased at the second harvest date. Farzinmehr et al. [44] also demonstrated that cellulose content was highest (23.0–23.7% DM) in JA biomass harvested twice. In a study by Gunnarsson et al. [32], the content of cellulose and hemicelluloses in JA aerial biomass was 15.1–24.8% and 10.8–13.5%, respectively. The highest hemicellulose content (approx. 17% DM) was noted in several JA clones harvested in September and October, compared with those harvested in December [32]. In this experiment, the hemicellulose content of JA biomass was low (<6% on average), and double cutting during the growing season contributed to an increase in hemicellulose concentration.
The proportions of structural carbohydrate fractions in JA biomass were significantly influenced by the year of the study and the harvest date (Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11). The concentrations of ADL, NDF, and ADF were highest in JA biomass harvested twice during the growing season, in June and October (ii), and in 2018, characterized by low precipitation levels during the growing season. Stolarski et al. [45] also noted the highest ADL content (10.0–11.0% DM) in JA biomass harvested twice. Farzinmehr et al. [44] also found that the ADL content of JA biomass increased in stages of advanced maturity. Different concentrations of NDF (23.3% to 39.2% DM), ADF (21.6% to 29.9% DM), and ADL (4.8% to 7.2% DM) in JA biomass harvested at different plant growth stages were also reported by other authors [71,76,77]. The proportions of structural carbohydrate fractions in JA biomass harvested in different seasons can be modified by changing weather and environmental conditions (temperature, light, moisture) during the growing season, which affect nutrient uptake and distribution in plants, as was also observed in this study. According to McDonald et al. [74], an increase in the concentrations of NDF, ADF, and ADL in JA biomass can be attributed to the decreased leaf to stem ratio in stages of advanced maturity, and higher requirements for the development of supporting tissues responsible for the structural resilience of growing plants.

3.2.6. Content of Water-Soluble Carbohydrates

The WSC content of JA aerial biomass ranged from 11.17% to 20.80% DM (Table 12), and it was highest when biomass was harvested only once in August (i). Double cutting (June and October) contributed to a decrease in the WSC content, and an increase in the CP content of JA biomass. Neither the year of the study nor the year x harvest date interaction significantly affected WSC accumulation. According to Fang et al. [78] and Li et al. [35], JA aerial biomass is rich in WSCs that play an important role in the fermentation process [79]. According to Wyss and Vogel [75], the WSC content of JA biomass undergoes changes during the growing season. Plants harvested in early phenological growth stages contain more sugars, whereas WSC levels decrease in successive regrowths [75], as was also observed in this study. Lower WSC concentrations in advanced stages of plant maturity may be due to increased sugar utilization for cellulose and starch synthesis [74,80], as well as nutrient (sugar) translocation from the aboveground plant parts to tubers [66,70], or to leaf senescence with plant aging, since JA leaves tend to accumulate higher concentrations of WSC than stems [44]. Therefore, JA biomass for bioethanol production should be harvested between the stages of bud formation and the end of flowering in early cultivars, and in the bud formation stage in late cultivars, because the WSC content of stems decreases in later development stages [21]. The WSC content of JA biomass may also be influenced by weather conditions at harvest [70,74]. However, this was not the case in this study.

4. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the quality of JA biomass was influenced by the year of the study and the harvest strategy (single-cut vs. double-cut). The content of CP, CFR, cellulose, hemicellulose, NDF, ADF, and ADL in JA biomass was highest in the first year of the field experiment (with the lowest total precipitation during the growing season). The season had no significant effect on the content of CF and WSC in JA biomass. Aerial biomass harvested twice during the growing season (in June and October) had a higher content of CA (year 3), CFR and hemicellulose (years 1 and 2), cellulose, NDF, and ADF (year 1), and ADL (years 1 and 3). In each year of the study, aerial biomass harvested once in August had a higher WSC content. The results of this study, which analyzed the quality of JA biomass, as well as those of a previous study (29) which investigated the biomass yield and energy value of JA based on the same field experiment, indicate that a double-cut harvest strategy (June and October) is justified when biomass is intended for thermochemical conversion or the production of second-generation biofuels, while biomass harvested only once during the growing season (August) can be used as a co-substrate for anaerobic digestion. However, a comprehensive assessment of the practical suitability of JA biomass for energy purposes would require the identification of the optimal cultivation technology and harvest strategy, including economic and environmental impact analyses of the production process.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.B.; methodology, B.B.; software, B.B.; formal analysis, B.B. and B.D.; investigation, B.B. and B.D.; resources, B.B. and B.D.; data curation, B.B.; writing—original draft preparation, B.B. and B.D.; writing—review and editing, B.B. and B.D.; visualization, B.B.; supervision, B.B.; project administration, B.B.; funding acquisition, B.B. and B.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a comprehensive study conducted at the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (grant No. 30.610.013–110). This study was funded by the Minister of Science under the “Regional Initiative of Excellence” program.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Die Topinambur Manufaktur in Heimenkirch (Bavaria, Germany) for supplying Jerusalem artichoke tubers for this study. We would also like to thank the staff of the AES in Bałcyny for technical support during the experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ivanova, T.; Muntean, A.; Titei, V.; Havrland, B.; Kolarikova, M. Energy crops utilization as an alternative agricultural production. Agron. Res. 2015, 13, 311–317. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kai, G.; Tie-Xia, Z.; Qi-Bing, W. Nitrogen fertilization, irrigation, and harvest times affect biomass and energy value of Helianthus tuberosus L. J. Plant Nutr. 2016, 39, 1906–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stolarski, M.J.; Śnieg, M.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Tworkowski, J.; Szczukowski, J.; Graban, Ł.; Lajszner, W. Short rotation coppices, grasses and other herbaceous crops: Biomass properties versus 26 genotypes and harvest time. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 119, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Liebhard, P.; Zeitlhofer, C.; Kaul, H.P.; Amon, T. Methanbildungsvermögen und Biogasqualität bei der Vergärung von Topinamburkraut. In Topinambur—Eine Pflanze Mit Vielen Verwendungsmöglichkeiten; Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg (LTZ): Karlsruhe, Germany, 2009; pp. 2.11–2.17. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jankowski, K.J.; Dubis, B.; Sokólski, M.M.; Załuski, D.; Bórawski, P.; Szempliński, W. Biomass yield and energy balance of Virginia fanpetals in different production technologies in north-eastern Poland. Energy 2019, 185, 612–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Von Cossel, M.; Lewandowski, I.; Elbersen, B.; Staritsky, I.; Van Eupen, M.; Iqbal, Y.; Mantel, S.; Scoridia, D.; Testa, G.; Cosentino, S.L.; et al. Marginal agricultural land low-input systems for biomass production. Energies 2019, 12, 3123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Komorowicz, M.; Wróblewska, H.; Pawłowski, J. Chemical composition and energetic properties of biomass from selected renewable resources. Skład chemiczny i właściwości energetyczne biomasy z wybranych surowców odnawialnych. Ochr. Sr. I Zasobów Nat. 2009, 40, 401–418. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  8. Menon, V.; Rao, M. Trends in bioconversion of lignocellulose: Biofuels, platform chemicals & biorefinery concept. Prog. Energy Combust. 2012, 38, 522–550. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rossini, F.; Provenzano, M.E.; Kuzmanovíc, L.; Ruggeri, R. Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): A Versatile and Sustainable Crop for Renewable Energy Production in Europe. Agronomy 2019, 9, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Godin, B.; Lamaudiere, S.; Agneessens, R.; Schmit, T.; Goffart, J.P.; Stilmant, D.; Gerin, P.A.; Delcarte, J. Chemical characteristics and biofuel potential of several vegetal biomasses grown under a wide range of environmental conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 48, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Maj, G.; Piekarski, W.; Słowik, T. Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) substrate for biogas production. Gaz, Woda. Tech. Sanit. 2013, 2, 59–60. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  12. Jankowski, K.J.; Dubis, B.; Kozak, M. Sewage sludge and the energy balance of Jerusalem artichoke production-A case study in north-eastern Poland. Energy 2021, 236, 121545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dias, N.S.; Ferreira, J.F.S.; Liu, X.L.; Suarez, D.L. Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) maintains high inulin, tuber yield, and antioxidant capacity under moderately-saline irrigation waters. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 94, 1009–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Soja, G.; Dersch, G. Harvest dates, fertilizer and varietal effects on yield, concentration and molecular distribution of fructan in Jerusalem artichoke (Helianfhus tuberosus L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 1990, 165, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Seiler, G.J. The potential of wild sunflower species for industrial uses. Helia 2007, 30, 175–198. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lewandowski, I.; Clifton-Brown, J.C.; Scurlock, J.M.O.; Huisman, W. Miscanthus: European experience with a novel energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy 2000, 19, 209–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sawicka, B. Jerusalem Artichoke Helianthus tuberosus L.—Biology, Cultivation and Applications; Wyd. UP w Lublinie: Lublin, Poland, 2016; p. 223. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  18. Chekroun, M.B.; Amzile, J.; El Yachioui, M.; El Holoui, N.E.; Prevost, J. Qualitative and quantitative development of carbohydrate reserves during the biological cycle of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) tubers. N. Z. J. Crop Hort. 1994, 22, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liava, V.; Karkanis, A.; Danalatos, N.; Tsiropoulos, N. Cultivation Practices, Adaptability and phytochemical composition of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.): A weed with economic value. Agronomy 2021, 11, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McKendry, P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Curt, M.D.; Aguado, P.; Sanz, M.; Sanchez, G.; Fernandez, J. Clone precocity and the use of Helianthus tuberosus L. stems for bioethanol. Ind. Crops Prod. 2006, 24, 314–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Piskier, T. A model of topinambour cultivation for fuel purposes. Inżynieria Rol. 2010, 7, 183–190. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  23. Izsáki, Z.; Kádi, G.N. Biomass acumulation and nutrient uptake of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Am. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 1629–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gao, K.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, T.; Coulter, J.A. Nitrogen fertilization, and harvest times affect biomass and energy value of Helianthus tuberosus L. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 39, 1906–1914. [Google Scholar]
  25. Baldini, M.; Danuso, F.; Monti, A.; Amaducci, M.T.; Stevanato, P.; Mastro, G. Chichory and Jerusalem artichoke productivity In different areas of Italy, in relation to water availability and Time of harvest. Ital. J. Agron. Riv. Agron. 2006, 2, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Piskier, T. A method of estimation of the caloric value of the biomass. Part I—Biomass energy potential. J. Mech. Energy Eng. 2017, 1, 189–194. [Google Scholar]
  27. Szostek, M.; Kaniuczak, J.; Hajduk, E.; Stanek-Tarkowska, J.; Jasiński, T.; Niemiec, W.; Smusz, R. Effect of sewage sludge on the yield and Energy value of the aboveground biomass of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianfhus tuberosus L.). Arch. Environ. Protect. 2018, 44, 42–50. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bogucka, B.; Pszczółkowska, A.; Okorski, A.; Jankowski, K. The Effects of Potassium Fertilization and Irrigation on the Yield and Health Status of Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Agronomy 2021, 11, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bogucka, B.; Jankowski, K.J. The effect of harvest strategy on the energy potential of Jerusalem artichoke. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 177, 114473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kocsis, L.; Kaul, H.P.; Praznik, W.; Liebhard, P. Influence of harvest date on shoot and tuber yield of different Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) cultivars in the semiarid production area of Austria. Pflanzenbauwissenschaften 2007, 11, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
  31. Piskier, T. Energetic potential of Jeruzalem artichoke. Potencjał energetyczny topinamburu. Inżynieria Rol. 2009, 1, 133–136. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  32. Gunnarsson, I.B.; Svensson, S.E.; Johansson, E.; Karakashev, D.; Angelidaki, I. Potential of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) as a biorefinery crop. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 56, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Johansson, E.; Prade, T.; Angelidaki, I.; Svensson, S.E.; Newson, W.R.; Gunnarsson, I.B.; Hovmalm, H.P. Economically viable components from Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) in a biorefinery concept. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 8997–9016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Yang, L.; He, Q.S.; Corscadden, K.; Udenigwe, C.C. The prospects of Jerusalem artichoke in functional food ingredients and bioenergy production. Biotechnol. Rep. 2015, 5, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Li, M.; Wang, J.; Yang, Y.Z.; Xie, G.H. Alkali-based pretreatments distinctively extract lignin and pectin for enhancing biomass saccharification by altering cellulose features in sugar-rich Jerusalem artichoke stem. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 208, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kaszás, L.; Alshaal, T.; El-Ramady, H.; Kovács, Z.; Koroknai, J.; Elhawat, N.; Nagy, É.; Cziáky, Z.; Fári, M.; Domokos-Szabolcsy, É. Identification of bioactive phytochemicals in leaf protein concentrate of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). Plants 2020, 9, 889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Szyszlak-Bargłowicz, J.; Piekarski, W. Calorific value of biomass from Virginia fanpetals (Sida hermaphrodita Rusby) stems depending on humidity. Wartość opałowa łodyg ślazowca pensylwańskiego w zależności od wilgotności. Inżynieria Rol. 2009, 8, 223–230. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  38. Czeczko, R. Comparison the degre of hydration in of diferent parts of Helianthus tuberosus in aspect of their suitability as biofuel. Porównanie stopnia uwodnienia różnych części Helianthus tuberosus w aspekcie ich przydatności jako biopaliwa. Ochr. Sr. Zasobów Nat. 2011, 49, 521–524. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  39. Wisz, J.; Matwiejew, A. Bio-Mass—Laboratory Tests Concerning It Usefulness for Power Combustion. Biomasa—Badania w laboratorium w aspekcie przydatności do energetycznego spalania. Energetyka 2005, 9, 631–636. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  40. Piskier, T. Jerusalem artichoke—A crop with multiple uses. Czysta Energ. 2006, 8, 15. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  41. Niu, L.; Manxia, C.; Xiumei, G.; Xiaohua, L.; Hongbo, S.; Zhaopu, L.; Zed, R. Carbon sequestration and Jerusalem artichoke biomass under nitrogen applications in coastal saline zone in the northern region of Jiangsu, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 568, 885–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Piskier, T. Labour inputs and costs of topinambour growing. Inżynieria Rol. 2006, 11, 359–365. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  43. Stolarski, M.J.; Śnieg, M.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Tworkowski, J.; Szczukowski, J. Short rotation coppices, grasses and other herbaceous crops: Productivity and yield energy value versus 26 genotypes. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 119, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Farzinmehr, S.; Rezaei, J.H.; Fazaeli, H. Effect of harvesting frequency and maturity stage of Jerusalem artichoke forage on yield, chemical composition and in vitro fermentation of the tubers and forage. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 18, e0602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stolarski, M.J.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Olba-Zięty, E. Biomass yield and quality of perennial herbaceous crops in a double harvest in a continental environment. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 180, 114752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhou, L.; Pang, J.; Wang, A.; Zhang, T. Catalytic conversion of Jerusalem artichoke stalk to ethylene glycol over a combined catalyst of WO3 and Raney Ni. Chin. J. Catal. 2013, 34, 2041–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mosier, N.; Wyman, C.; Dale, B.; Elander, R.; Lee, Y.Y.; Holtzapple, M.; Ladisch, M. Features of promising technologies for pretreatment of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2005, 96, 673–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Carroll, A.; Somerville, C. Cellulosic biofuels. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2009, 60, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th ed.; FAO: Vienna, Austria, 2022; p. 234. [Google Scholar]
  50. Houba, V.J.G.; Van der Lee, J.J.; Novozamsky, I. Soil and Plant Analysis; Part 5B. Soil Analysis Procedure Other Procedure; Wageningen Agricultural University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  51. Polish Standard PN–ISO 5983; Animal Feeding Stuffs. Determination of Nitrogen Content and Calculation of Crude Protein Content. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2000. (In Polish)
  52. Polish Standard PN–ISO 6492; Animal Feeding Stuffs. Determination of Fat Content. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2005. (In Polish)
  53. Polish Standard PN–EN ISO 6865; Animal Feeding Stuffs. Determination of Crude Fiber Content. Method with Intermediate Filtration. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 2002. (In Polish)
  54. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Polish Standard PN–R-64784; Animal Feeding Stuffs. Determination of Sugar Content. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1994. (In Polish)
  56. TIBCO. Statistica, version 13; Data Analysis Software System; TIBCO Software Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kays, S.J.; Nottingham, S.F. Biology and Chemistry of Jerusalem Artichoke: Helianthus tuberosus L.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kocsis, L.; Liebhard, C.; Zeitlhofer, C.; Wetscherek, W. Einfluss der Sorte und des Erntezeitpunktes von Topinamburkraut auf ernährungsrelevante Aspekte in der Schweinefütterung. In Topinambur—Eine Pflanze mit Vielen Verwendungsmöglichkeiten; Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg (LTZ): Karlsruhe, Germany, 2009; pp. 2.11–2.17. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wróblewska, H.; Komorowicz, M.; Pawłowski, J.; Cichy, W. Chemical and energetical properties of selected lignocellulosic raw materials. Folia For. Pol. 2009, 40, 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  60. Smoliński, A.; Howaniec, N.; Bąk, A. Utilization of energy crops and sewage sludge in the process of co-gasification for sustainable hydrogen production. Energies 2018, 11, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Casler, M.D.; Boe, A.R. Cultivar_environment interactions in switchgrass. Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 2226–2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lewandowski, I.; Schmidt, U. Nitrogen, energy and land use efficiencies of miscanthus, reed canary grass and triticale as determined by the boundary line approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 335–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cassida, K.A.; Muir, J.P.; Hussey, M.A.; Read, J.C.; Venuto, B.C.; Ocumpaugh, W.R. Biofuel component concentrations and yields of switchgrass in South central US environments. Crop Sci. 2005, 45, 682–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kołodziej, B.; Antonkiewicz, J.; Sugier, D. Miscanthus × giganteus as a biomass feedstock grown on municipalsewage sludge. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 81, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gao, K.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, T.; Coulter, J.A. The influence of flower removal on tuber yield and biomass characteristics of Helianthus tuberosus L. in a semi-arid area. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 150, 112374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Denoroy, P. The crop physiology of Helianthus tuberosus L.: A model oriented view. Biomass Bioenergy 1996, 11, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sarmadi, B.; Rouzbehan, Y.; Rezaei, J. Influences of growth stage and nitrogen fertilizer on chemical composition, phenolics, in situ degradability and in vitro ruminal variables in amaranth forage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 215, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Seiler, G.J. Nitrogen and mineral content of selected wild and cultivated genotypes of Jerusalem artichoke. Agron. J. 1988, 80, 681–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Malmberg, A.; Theander, O. Differences in chemical composition of leaves and stemin Jerusalemartichoke and changes in lowmolecular sugar and fructan content with time of harvest. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 1986, 16, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  70. Hopkins, W.G.; Hüner, N.P.A. Introduction to Plant Physiology, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2008; p. 503. [Google Scholar]
  71. Karsli, M.A.; Bingöl, N.T. The determination of planting density on herbage yield and silage quality of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) green mass. Kafkas Üniv. Vet. Fakült. Dergisi. (J. Fac. Vet. Med. Univ. Kafkas) 2009, 15, 581–586. [Google Scholar]
  72. Ma, X.Y.; Zhang, L.H.; Shao, H.B.; Xu, G.; Zhang, F.; Ni, F.T.; Brestic, M. Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), a medicinal salt-resistant plant has high adaptability and multiple-use values. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011, 5, 1272–1279. [Google Scholar]
  73. Razmkhah, M.; Rezaei, J.; Fazaeli, H. Use of Jerusalem artichoke tops silage to replace corn silage in sheep diet. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 228, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. McDonald, P.; Edwards, R.A.; Greenhalgh, J.F.D.; Morgan, C.A.; Sinclair, L.A.; Wilkinson, R.G. Animal Nutrition, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Essex, UK, 2011; p. 692. [Google Scholar]
  75. Wyss, U.; Vogel, R. Ensylability of some common grassland herbs. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 1998, 3, 1005–1009. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hay, R.K.M.; Offer, N.W. Helianthus tuberosus as an alternative forage crop for cool maritime regions: A preliminary study of the yield and nutritional quality of shoot tissues from perennial stands. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1992, 60, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Papi, N.; Kafilzadeh, F.; Fazaeli, H. Effects of incremental substitution of maize silage with Jerusalem artichoke silage on performance of fat-tailed lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2017, 147, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Fang, Y.R.; Liu, J.A.; Steinberger, Y.; Xie, G.H. Energy use efficiency and economic feasibility of Jerusalem artichoke production on arid and coastal saline lands. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 117, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Žilakova, J.; Knotek, S. Ensiling capacity and quality of silage from permanent, oversown and temporary grassland sward. Grassl. Sci. Pol. 1998, 1, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  80. Smith, A.M.; Kruger, N.J.; Lunn, J.E. Source of sugar nucleotides for starch and cellulose synthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Energies 17 04008 g001
Figure 1. Experiment with Jerusalem artichoke (phot. B. Bogucka).
Figure 1. Experiment with Jerusalem artichoke (phot. B. Bogucka).
Energies 17 04008 g001
Energies 17 04008 g002
Figure 2. Experiment with Jerusalem artichoke (phot. B. Bogucka).
Figure 2. Experiment with Jerusalem artichoke (phot. B. Bogucka).
Energies 17 04008 g002
Table 1. F-test and mean squares statistics (MS) in ANOVA.
Table 1. F-test and mean squares statistics (MS) in ANOVA.
ParameterYearHarvest DateYear × Harvest Date
FMSFMSFMS
Crude ash (%)39.65 **6.47 **59.34 **9.68 **16.05 **2.62 **
Crude protein (%)15.93 **6.43 **36.38 **14.69 **11.88 **4.80 **
Crude fat (%)0.65 ns0.013 ns1.74 ns0.035 ns9.57 **0.19 **
Crude fiber (%)710.22 **120.61 **1300.11 **220.78 **204.70 **34.76 **
WSC (%)0.60 ns1.78 ns93.66 **277.72 **1.82 ns5.40 ns
NDF (%)9399.1 **225.89 **23,031.4 **553.52 **2710.4 **65.14 **
ADF (%)12,362 **125.57 **37,233 **378.23 **4255 **43.22 **
ADL (%)569.83 **7.87 **47.19 **0.65 **18.51 **0.25 **
Cellulose (%)7402.8 **110.3 **18,762.5 **279.6 **3112.9 **46.4 **
Hemicellulose (%)852.5 **25.4 **556.6 **16.6 **110.1 **3.3 **
** significant at p < 0.01; ns—not significant.
Table 2. Weather conditions during the experiment (2018–2020) in the Agricultural Experiment Station (Bałcyny, Poland, 53°35′46.4″ N, 19°51′19.5″ E).
Table 2. Weather conditions during the experiment (2018–2020) in the Agricultural Experiment Station (Bałcyny, Poland, 53°35′46.4″ N, 19°51′19.5″ E).
MonthYear
201820192020
Total monthly rainfall (mm)
January374328
February23344
March253025
April2801
May419764
June649299
July1408539
August3164107
September298432
October463881
November252010
December571725
∑525603555
Mean daily temperature (°C)
January0.0−2.62.4
February−4.12.03.1
March−0.55.23.6
April11.98.96.8
May16,512.19.9
June17.921.017.8
July20.017.417.6
August20.419.519.1
September15.314.015.1
October9.810.110.1
November4.15.65.6
December1.12.81.5
x ¯ 9.49.79.4
Table 3. Effect of harvest date on the crude ash content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 3. Effect of harvest date on the crude ash content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
20187.17 bc7.37 b7.27 a
20194.96 d6.33 bc5.65 b
20206.17 c9.00 a7.58 a
X6.10 b7.57 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 4. Effect of harvest date on the crude protein content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 4. Effect of harvest date on the crude protein content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
20188.90 a9.60 a9.25 a
20198.05 a8.90 a8.48 a
20205.26 b9.13 a7.20 b
X7.40 b9.21 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 5. Effect of harvest date on the crude fat content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 5. Effect of harvest date on the crude fat content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
20180.87 ab0.83 ab0.85 a
20191.10 a0.63 b0.87 a
20200.66 b0.90 ab0.78 a
X0.88 a0.79 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 6. Effect of harvest date on the crude fiber content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 6. Effect of harvest date on the crude fiber content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
201824.26 b29.97 a27.11 a
201917.47 d29.80 a23.63 b
202016.73 d19.70 c18.21 c
X19.48 b26.49 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 7. Effect of harvest date on the cellulose content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 7. Effect of harvest date on the cellulose content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
201826.06 c42.40 a34.23 a
201921.27 f31.15 b26.21 b
202022.99 e25.71 c24.35 c
X23.44 b33.09 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 8. Effect of harvest date on the hemicellulose content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 8. Effect of harvest date on the hemicellulose content (%) of Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
20185.76 b8.97 a7.36 a
20195.20 b8.78 a6.99 a
20202.69 c2.96 c2.82 b
X4.55 b6.90 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 9. Effect of harvest date on the content of neutral detergent fiber (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 9. Effect of harvest date on the content of neutral detergent fiber (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
201837.64 c58.79 a48.22 a
201931.68 e46.20 b38.94 b
202030.79 f35.88 d33.34 c
X33.37 b46.96 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 10. Effect of harvest date on the content of acid detergent fiber (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 10. Effect of harvest date on the content of acid detergent fiber (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
201831.89 d49.82 a40.85 a
201926.48 f37.43 b31.96 b
202028.10 e32.90 c30.50 c
X28.82 b40.05 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 11. Effect of harvest date on the content of acid detergent lignin (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 11. Effect of harvest date on the content of acid detergent lignin (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
20185.69 c7.41 a6.55 a
20195.21 d6.28 b5.74 c
20205.12 d7.18 a6.15 b
X5.34 b6.96 a
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Table 12. Effect of harvest date on the content of water-soluble carbohydrates (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
Table 12. Effect of harvest date on the content of water-soluble carbohydrates (%) in Jerusalem artichoke aerial biomass.
YearHarvest Date (Month)X
AugustJune and October
201820.80 a12.67 b16.73 a
201920.76 a11.17 b15.97 a
202019.93 a14.10 b17.01 a
X20.50 a12.64 b
Means marked with the same letter in a row (Harvest date and Year × Harvest date) and a column (Year) do not differ significantly at p ≤ 0.05 in Tukey’s HSD test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bogucka, B.; Dubis, B. The Quality of Jerusalem Artichoke Biomass Harvested Twice during the Growing Season in North-Eastern Poland. Energies 2024, 17, 4008. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17164008

AMA Style

Bogucka B, Dubis B. The Quality of Jerusalem Artichoke Biomass Harvested Twice during the Growing Season in North-Eastern Poland. Energies. 2024; 17(16):4008. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17164008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bogucka, Bożena, and Bogdan Dubis. 2024. "The Quality of Jerusalem Artichoke Biomass Harvested Twice during the Growing Season in North-Eastern Poland" Energies 17, no. 16: 4008. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17164008

APA Style

Bogucka, B., & Dubis, B. (2024). The Quality of Jerusalem Artichoke Biomass Harvested Twice during the Growing Season in North-Eastern Poland. Energies, 17(16), 4008. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17164008

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop