Proceedings of the Conference on a Michigan Biomaterials Initiative: The Role of Education, Research, and Technology Organized by Michigan Technological University & Hosted by Michigan Society of American Foresters October 3-­‐4, 2013 Traverse City, Michigan MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 This report contains the proceedings of the Michigan Biomaterials Conference hosted by the Michigan Society of American Foresters, October 3-­‐4, 2013, in Traverse City, Michigan. Unfiltered responses from participant worksheets, group summaries from recorders, and comments made during the group reporting period have been categorized and summarized. These proceedings are also available online at www.mtu.edu/forest/biomaterials/ Please cite as: T. L. Bal*, T.L. Sharik, A.J. Storer, C.A. Hohnholt, and H.W.
Abbotts (eds). 2013. Proceedings of the Conferenceon a Michigan Biomaterials Initiative: The Role of Education, Research, and Technology. School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University. October 3-4, Traverse City, MI. *tlbal@mtu.edu
2 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Table of Contents All abstracts, presentations, and proceedings are available online at www.mtu.edu/forest/biomaterials Section Heading Page Executive Summary of Conference Proceedings .................................................................... 4 Conference Sponsors .............................................................................................................. 5 What are Biomaterials? .......................................................................................................... 6 Overall Goal of Conference and Expected Outcomes ............................................................ 6 Welcome Statements ............................................................................................................. 7 Conference Overview ........................................................................................................... 13 State Delegation Presentation Abstracts ............................................................................. 18 State Delegation Speaker Biographies ................................................................................. 20 Keynote Speaker Biography and Presentation Abstract ....................................................... 27 State Representative Response Letter ................................................................................. 29 Proceedings of the Break-­‐Out Sessions ................................................................................ 30 •
•
•
Barriers to Michigan Being a Leader in the Biomaterials Industry ......................... 33 Alternate Names for “Biomaterials” ...................................................................... 38 Educational Process ............................................................................................... 41 o Knowledge ................................................................................................. 41 o Skills/Abilities ............................................................................................. 43 o Behaviors .................................................................................................... 45 o Research and Technology Gaps and Needs ................................................ 46 o Recruitment and Retention ........................................................................ 48 o General ....................................................................................................... 48 3 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Executive Summary A statewide conference was held October 3–4, 2013, focusing on developing a Michigan Biomaterials Initiative. The conference was organized by Michigan Technological University and hosted by the Michigan Society of American Foresters. Constituents attending the conference included representatives from the forest products industry, academia, natural resources agencies, the agricultural community, landowners, community and economic development leaders, state legislators, and the Governor’s office. Delegations from four other states around the country that have successfully developed biomaterials programs or clusters in their public universities and economies presented information to help facilitate discussion. The aim was to develop a greater understanding of how academic institutions are creating partnerships with various industries in the field of biomaterials in their respective states. The overall goal of the conference was to position institutions of higher learning in Michigan to work with other sectors around biomaterials and increase the economic well-­‐being and overall quality of life for all Michigan citizens while maintaining the health of the ecosystems upon which they depend. Breakout sessions discussed topics centering on: 1) barriers to Michigan being a more significant player in the biomaterials industry, 2) understanding why wood science and products academic programs around the country are rebranding themselves, 3) development of an educational program in biomaterials in the state of Michigan, and 4) identification of gaps in knowledge/research and technology related to biomaterials. The following proceedings set the stage for further detailed discussion between the constituents listed above. Figure 1. Word Cluster from group breakout sessions on the educational objectives for a Michigan Biomaterials Initiative. 4 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Michigan Biomaterials Conference Sponsors Bob & Nancy Ross
SAGOLA HARDWOODS, LTD.
5 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 What are “Biomaterials”? “Biomaterials" is used here to describe any organic materials that are extracted from ecosystems, including but not limited to, wood, mushrooms, edible berries, and plant sap in terrestrial ecosystems and algae in aquatic ecosystems. Issues: From a life cycle perspective, the issue is that of how to extract these materials from ecosystems without compromising their integrity; how to process these materials in a myriad of ways to fully utilize the resource; how to market them regionally, nationally, and globally; and how to recycle these "green materials" through the same or other materials, or back through ecosystems. Figure 2. Ecosystems, extraction, and processing are just part of the Biomaterials life cycle, which also includes marketing and post-­‐consumer processing and recycling. Overall Goal of the Conference “to position institutions of higher learning in the state of Michigan to work with other sectors to increase the economic well-­‐being and overall quality of life for its citizens while maintaining the health of the ecosystems upon which they depend.” Expected Outcomes • Greater understanding of why the most highly regarded wood science and products academic programs in the country are rebranding themselves • Greater understanding of how academic institutions in other states are reaching out to others in partnerships as part of this rebranding and realigning themselves with various industries given the new economic environment • Identification of barriers to Michigan being a more significant player in the biomaterials industry • Development of an educational program (2-­‐year, 4-­‐year, graduate, and continuing) in biomaterials that encompasses requisite knowledge, skills and abilities, and behaviors • Identification of gaps in knowledge/research, and technology related to biomaterials 6 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Welcome Statements The following statements are transcribed from the introductory welcome speakers of the Michigan Biomaterials Conference. Bernie Hubbard, Michigan Society of American Foresters, State Chair I want to welcome all of you to the State of Michigan, the Grand Traverse Region and the Great Wolf Lodge for the Michigan Biomaterials Conference cosponsored by Michigan Technological University and the Michigan Society of American Foresters. For those of you from other states and you folks from other parts of Michigan I urge you to explore the Grand Traverse area and Traverse City as this region has been a leader in the wise use and management of our natural resources for the benefit of local, state and national interests. Over the next two days we will hear from other states what is happening in the Biomaterials world and where the state of Michigan and the Great Lakes Region can fit in with the developing nontraditional uses of our forests and natural resources. We will then do some brainstorming and discuss where we are, what needs to be done from a research and management viewpoint and look into the future to see how we can implement the new technologies from an economic and on the ground management viewpoint. So, again welcome and let us get started on a very productive conference looking outside the box of traditional forest management. Terry Sharik, Dean of the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University Hello, I’m Terry Sharik, Dean of the School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science at Michigan Tech and I want to welcome all of you and tell you that we really appreciate your being here. This is a very diverse group related to the industry of biomaterials and we’re hopeful that were going to learn a lot from each other and come away in a little less than 24 hours with a little more sense of where we’d like to go with this initiative in the future. I want to start out by thanking the Michigan Society of American Foresters who agreed to host this. When we started thinking about the fact that we need to have a conference around this, went to them and they agreed to handle the logistics of the meeting and let us handle the content. Bernie Hubbard, chair of the Michigan SAF, has our gratitude for making this happen. We’re going to have a round of introductions of people. Then I will give an overview presentation, talk about the agenda, and then move into presentations by the four state delegations that we brought in from Virginia, Maine, North Carolina, and Oregon respectively. This is the general way we will proceed today, followed by a social and dinner tonight and then 7 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 go sleep on it. Tomorrow will we have our break-­‐out groups strategizing around the issues of developing an educational model, that includes a two year, four year, graduate, and continuing education, and also identifying gaps in research and knowledge to help us move forward. That’s the big picture. This is really an outgrowth of the Governor’s forest products summit that happened last April in Lansing, the state capital, and so it’s even appropriate that we have a few words of welcome from the Governor’s office. Thus, I would like Dave Nyberg, who is the director of the northern Michigan Office of the Governor, working out of Marquette, to come forward to say a few words. Dave Nyberg, Director of Northern Michigan Office of the Governor Rick Snyder Thank you, Dr. Sharik. I’d to like to start off by thanking the Society of American Foresters in Michigan and Dr. Sharik at Michigan Tech for the strong commitment to the discussion today. As Dr. Sharik mentioned, this discussion really is a tremendous follow-­‐up to some of the vision that Governor Snyder sought for and sees for our state and the opportunity to bolster our land-­‐based industries. As many of you probably know, the governor has spoken several times on increasing our productivity and value-­‐added exports in Michigan’s land-­‐based industries, including in the agriculture and forest products sectors. As a result of some of those discussions the Governor gave a special message on energy and the environment last November, which called for a forest products discussion between the investment community, foresters, loggers, sawmills, pulp and paper mills, and other value-­‐added processors. These stakeholders came together in April, 2013, for the Governor’s Forest Products Summit. One outcome of that Summit was to identify some key actions to address challenges and improve productivity in emerging markets, increase collaboration between the academic community, industry, financial community, government and economic developers, and also increase public awareness about the value of forest products and biomaterials. This discussion today is a wonderful outgrowth of those action items and I’m anxious to follow up with the Governor and let him know about some of the discussion here today. I want to thank you all for being here. I’d also be remiss as part of the Governor’s office if I didn’t encourage you to enjoy yourself while you’re here in Michigan and branch out to some of the local attractions we have here. So welcome and let’s have a great discussion. As the Governor would like to say, “I like meeting but not so much all nice meetings.” In other words, let’s have a robust, productive discussion while we are here today. Thank you. 8 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Howard Walker, Michigan State Senator (Introductory welcome, the 2nd day after the break out sessions) Good afternoon everybody. Thank you, Terry, and the others who drove to Traverse City for this event. What we do in northern Michigan for the large part is to enjoy being a destination spot for these types of activities, and one I hope you will enjoy being here and two I hope this is a successful conference for you all. As Terry mentioned, I graduated from Michigan Tech with a degree in forestry and at that time we were able to focus on different areas and I focused on land surveying and became a licensed professional land surveyor and owned my own business for about 15 years and sold that business and wanted to do something different and I got involved with the legislature running for state rep and now I’m a state senator. You are right, in that with my background being here, I think we do have untapped resources and untapped possibilities with regards to the forest industry and we have a real strong advocate up in the UP in the state legislator, Senator Casperson, who is a former logger, with a trucking company, in the logging industry, and he’s done a great job of promoting and raising awareness of that. And you folks too, not only can learn but bring that back and hopefully be catalysts for stimulating new paths in the timber/biomass industry. You know from my perspective, one, we have these untapped resources in northern Michigan but two, to become elected we really need to know what’s important to the folks in the state and I can tell you that the number one issue to folks when I ran was jobs. And what you’re doing here, you are opening up more opportunities for jobs and that’s important for Michigan citizens. I think it’s good that you’ve analyzed and looked at a number of barriers that your industry will bump into. I will be the first one to say that I think there will be huge political barriers for you folks to advance some of the initiatives and ideas that you are working on. I’m with you and I bump into those same barriers. But it’s interesting, some of the same issues that you talk about today, are issues I talked about in college classes when I was there: about acceptance of the values that our forest lands have and some of the resistance there is to utilizing wood fiber and utilizing our forest lands for production and harvest. We were bumping into those same issues 30 years ago and it’s interesting that we’re still talking about raising awareness and educating the public about what a forest land is and what we can do to utilize that biomass. So, I want to let you know that, one, I appreciate what you are doing; two, I appreciate you being here; and three, I hope this can be a productive conference and catalyst to further develop that industry. So, welcome and thank you. 9 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Other legislative representatives present: Gabe Schneider, Community Affairs Specialist for U.S. Senator, Carl Levin Brandon Fewins, Northern Michigan regional manager for U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow Brandon Darin, District Director for U.S. Representative Dan Benishak Elise Matz, Legislative Aide for State Representative Scott Dianda Major Sponsors Statements Keith Creagh, Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Thanks, Dr. Sharik. A couple of things. Dave has talked about it and the dean has talked about it: the governor’s message about the energy and environment and the governor’s summit. I’d be remiss not to mention one of my bosses, J.R. Richardson, sitting in the back of the room. J.R. is on the natural resource commission and they set policy in the state for many natural resource issues so I’m looking forward to this conversation. I think it was Edison who said ‘vision without execution is hallucination’. Right? So we’ve had the timber summit, we’ve had the vision and during this whole process someone said ‘Why won’t people invest in forestry in this state?’ What’s the answer to that? 20 million acres of forest. Why haven’t people aligned and invested in forestry in this state? We’re going to find out. You’re going to help us find out, because it is that alignment that will help drive the regional economies and in the rural areas of this state that’s really important. So I hope we have a robust conversation and I look forward to the output so we can have alignment that will make a difference in Michigan. Thank you. Bill Bobier, Policy Specialist, Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Thank you Terry. It’s good to be here. Keith aligned one aspect of this and that is there is a lot of talk everywhere. The other aspect, I’m sure J.R. will help us with this, is that it can be pretty dry. It can be very academic. And so J.R., you have a charge! But we are pleased to be here representing ag and rural development. Of course with agriculture we have a lot of private landowners that are out there, with timber standing in the woods, and our charge with rural development is to try to see that some of that timber hits the market. We’re very pleased to be a part of this discussion. As a department, we are pleased to have rural development in our charge and as well as other land-­‐based industries. It’s all a part of the big picture. And the big picture here is that you represent a huge amount of the resource and that the population is going in the other direction. As urbanization continues your biggest issues is to make sure that people in urban areas (that rely on the products from the forest) 10 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 understand the issues of the forest, because in many ways, they didn’t grow up with it and so they don’t know it. And they are dependent on it and they don’t know that. And so that is a big part of our charge. With that, I’m looking forward to it. Shawn Hagan, Great Lakes Representative, ForestLand Group, LLC Thank you Terry, on behalf of the Forestland Group and the partners of forest lands that we represent. Here in the Lake States Region, we are managing a little over six hundred thousand acres across the UP of Michigan and northern Wisconsin and approximately 3.5 million acres in the United States, Quebec, Belize, and Costa Rica. We are kind of a new face of large timberlands and land holdings. This is a very interesting topic for us because being an investment company; we are always looking for how can we provide returns for those investors. How can we add value to the property and see a return at the end? This is one of those opportunities hopefully that we can think a little outside of the box and look at where the next opportunity for returns will come from. So I’m hopeful we will learn some stuff this afternoon and looking forward to tonight coming up with some great ideas. Maybe it’s big leaved aster showing up in the produce department to be eaten or replace toilet paper. But again thank you, enjoy yourselves for the next day and a half and I look forward to talking with everybody via emails afterwards. Max Seel, Provost from Michigan Technological University (As he introduces the keynote speaker, David Shonnard) It is my great pleasure to be here and express my best wishes from President Mroz. He is a forester as well and wishes for a successful meeting. I would like to thank the Michigan Society of American Foresters, Bernie Hubbard, and especially our Dean, Terry Sharik, who is the boss tonight for me. This is a wonderful conference and it’s wonderful to meet people. The overall goal of your conference, to position institutions of higher education to work with other sectors to increase the economic well-­‐being of Michigan and overall quality of life for its citizens while maintaining the health of the ecosystems upon which they depend, reflects core values of our institution. Terry has my full support in this endeavor to bring together people from all different disciplines and backgrounds, to identify opportunities and challenges, and to develop a framework for discussions and collaborations. I want all the communities to be involved in the Biomaterials life cycle: between extraction and procurement, processing and manufacturing, marketing and sales and distribution, post-­‐consumer processing and recycling of ecosystem products. I can’t think of a better person who embodies the spirit of this conference more than the person I have the pleasure to introduce now, the keynote speaker, Dr. David Shonnard. 11 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Conference Overview Terry L. Sharik, Professor and Dean School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, MI, 49913 (tlsharik@mtu.edu) Introduction by Terry L. Sharik, continued (slides 7-­‐12) 12 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 13 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Introduction by Terry L. Sharik, continued (slides 13-­‐18)
14 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Introduction by Terry L. Sharik, continued (slides 19-­‐24) 15 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Introduction by Terry L. Sharik, continued (slides 25-­‐30, final)
16 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 State Delegations Presentation Abstracts Maine Stephen Shaler, Michael Bilodeau, Doug Denico, John McNulty, Jim St. Pierre Forest Bioproducts & Bioenergy in Maine Maine is blessed not only with over 17 million acres of beautiful forested landscape, but also with a diverse forest products industry. Over the past ten years, there have been significant research and market activities in forest bioproducts and bioenergy. Working relationships have developed between industry, landowners, state government, and the University of Maine as we anticipate and react to changes in policy, markets, and stakeholder preferences. Speakers will discuss University/Industry research partnerships for forest bioproducts (Michael Bilodeau, University of Maine), biofuel production (Jim St. Pierre, Old Town Fuel & Fiber), the impact of new markets on forest land management (John McNulty, Seven Island Land Company), the big picture of these changes on the forest resource in Maine – and how it compares to Michigan (Doug Denico, Maine Forest Service), and finally, the evolving educational programs at the University of Maine (Stephen Shaler, University of Maine) to prepare students to be successful as changes occur in the mix of products demanded from the forest. Oregon Laurence Schimleck, Kaichang Li, Linc Cannon
Renewable Materials at Oregon State University The Wood Science and Engineering Department at Oregon State University is a globally recognized center of expertise in wood science and renewable materials and is the only comprehensive program in the western United States. We help society sustainably meet its needs for renewable materials and American businesses increase their global competiveness through science, technology, engineering, and sound business practices. Our undergraduate program has undergone several recent changes both in response to the needs of our stakeholders who want business savvy, globally aware graduates with excellent communication skills and students who were concerned that a degree in wood technology was too restrictive and were more interested in a broad based degree that allowed a high degree of flexibility. In response to the changes, and an active marketing effort, we have seen a significant increase in enrollment and our program continues to grow. The aim of this presentation will be to describe the development of our new program, our research on renewable natural resources, and how we partner with industry to add value to the economy. 17 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 North Carolina Steve Kelley, Richard Lemaster, Richard Mullen Moving from ‘Wood and Paper Science’ to ‘Forest Biomaterials’ while supporting the Industry of Today and Tomorrow Under different names, North Carolina State University has had degree programs in ‘Wood Products’ and ‘Paper Science and Engineering’ for more than 60 years. NC State is the only University in the nation where these programs are in the same college as the Forestry and Natural Resources, and Recreation programs -­‐ and this matters. Specifically, these applied engineering and technology programs need to have depth and rigor, but also to be structured to understand the landscape that supports the production of timber, and understand the multiple demands on that landscape. The undergraduate programs in the Department of Forest Biomaterials are growing due in part to the tremendous opportunities for employment, but also due to real changes in the students’ perception of the industry. At the same time the industry is also changing with many pulp and paper companies focused on value-­‐added products and demanding highly-­‐skilled employees. This presentation will highlight changes in the undergraduate and graduate programs at NC State, and changes at Domtar, a strong industrial partner with mills in North Carolina and across North America. Virginia Bob Smith, Scott Renneckar, Charlie Becker, Dave Nutter The Changing Roles of Biomaterial Science Education and its Impact on Virginia’s Industry As forest products and other biomaterial industries evolve to meet the changing needs of society for sustainable products, the role of higher education must change to provide an educated workforce and cutting-­‐edge research necessary to assist these industries in increasing their competitiveness. In Virginia, one of the leading wood science and forest products programs in North America recently has evolved into the Department of Sustainable Biomaterials. This change was necessary to meet a changing need by our industry, to reflect the new science evolving in this field, and to attract new students who are interested in careers in this new landscape of sustainable products for a sustainable future. This presentation will highlight the drivers of the changes that have occurred in the Department of Sustainable Biomaterials at Virginia Tech, it will provide insight to the type of biomaterial research occurring in the Department from cellulose nanocomposites to gasification of wood chips for bioenergy, and will provide an overview of the industrial changes occurring within Virginia and surrounding region that describe the new industry. It will highlight the industry partnerships and affiliates programs within the department, and will show how economic development efforts from the university can support industry growth. 18 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 State Delegation Speaker Biographies Maine Stephen Shaler shaler@maine.edu Associate Director, Advanced Structures and Composites Center, Forest Bioproducts Research Institute, and Director and Professor of Wood Science, School of Forest Resources, University of Maine Stephen Shaler is Director and Professor of the School of Forest Resource at the University of Maine. He received his PhD from Pennsylvania State University, was on the faculty at Michigan Tech for 6 years and has since been at the University of Maine for the last 21 years. He has published over 60 peer reviewed journal articles and has received the received the Marra Award (3 times) and Markwardt Wood Engineering Award (3 times) for excellence in research and writing. Stephen has also been principal or co-­‐principal investigator on over $30 million of research with a primary research interest related to the mechanics and processing of composite materials. He serves as Associate Director of the Advanced Structures and Composites Center and was co-­‐principal investigator (serving as Scientific Director) of the $6.9 million National Science Foundation grant which founded the Forest Bioproducts Research Institute at the University of Maine. Michael Bilodeau mbilodeau@maine.edu Associate Director, Forest Bioproducts Research Initiative, and Director of Pulp and Paper Process Development Center, Chemical and Biological Engineering Department, and Forest Bioproducts Research Institute, University of Maine Mike Bilodeau is currently the Director of the Process Development Center at the University of Maine in Orono which provides research and technical services to private companies and public agencies, primarily those engaged in the Forest Products Industry. Mike is also an advisor to several early stage companies and non-­‐profit groups. Prior to joining the University of Maine in 2003, Mike worked in research and development and in corporate engineering for a global paper company for nearly 20 years. Mike received a baccalaureate degree in chemical engineering from the University of Maine in 1983. 19 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Douglas Denico doug.denico@maine.gov Maine State Forester, Director of Maine Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Brought up on a farm in rural Central Maine, he was first initiated into the woods in 1962, on T16R12 WELS, hand loading 4’ pulp. In spite of that experience, he attended Forestry School at the University of Maine at Orono, obtaining a BS in Forest Management and MS in Forest Economics. Upon graduation, he worked in Northern Maine for International Paper briefly before joining Scott Paper Company for a 37 year career on the same land base. His experiences covered the breadth of possible activities, including being a lobbyist in Augusta. Along the way, he acquired forest properties which have provided a great deal of satisfaction to own and manage. After an unsuccessful stint in retirement, he returned to active duty at the young age of 67 as Director of the Maine Forest Service, possibly his most rewarding job to date. John McNulty jmcnulty@sevenislands.com President Seven Islands Land Company, Maine John McNulty is President of Seven Islands Land Company. Seven Islands is a Maine-­‐based forestland resource and management company. Certified in the practiced skills of sustainability, the Seven Islands professional team of land managers, foresters, and operating personnel work together in a cost effective, efficient, and environmentally sound manner. Formed in 1964 for the purpose of long-­‐term sustainable stewardship of the Pingree forest, Seven Islands has grown to become a family of forestry-­‐based businesses that include land management, harvesting, road construction and maintenance, consulting, milling, chipping, and quality hardwood lumber and flooring production. James St.Pierre jim.stpierre@oldtownff.com Old Town Fuel & Fiber, Old Town, Maine James St.Pierre has served in the Maine pulp and paper industry for 30+ years. As a University of Maine mechanical engineering graduate, he has worked in project engineering, engineering management and operations supervision for most of his career. Since 2008, he has managed a biorefinery development with Old Town Fuel & Fiber in Old Town, Maine. He is licensed as both a Professional Engineer in Maine as well as a 1 class Stationary Steam Engineer in Maine. Red Shield Acquisition, LLC doing business as Old Town Fuel & Fiber, is a recipient of a DOE award and working to design, construct and operate a demonstration scale biorefinery to produce 14 MGPY of transportation grade ethanol from wood. Three patents have been filed in association with technology development in OTFF’s efforts to convert wood to higher value products. Work has passed through the R&D stages and OTFF looks to build the ethanol facility in 2014. st
20 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Oregon Laurence Schimleck laurence.schimleck@oregonstate.edu Professor, Department Head, Renewable Materials, Wood Science and Engineering, College of Forestry, Oregon State University Dr. Laurence Schimleck is Professor and Head of the Wood Science and Engineering Department in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University (OSU). Prior to joining OSU Dr. Schimleck was Professor of wood quality with the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources at the University of Georgia. His research has focused on the development of tools for the nondestructive evaluation of wood properties and examining the impact of silvicultural treatments on wood quality. His research has resulted in over 100 peer-­‐reviewed publications and numerous conference presentations. Dr. Schimleck has a PhD and MS in forestry from Melbourne University, Australia. Kaichang Li kaichang.li@oregonstate.edu Professor, Renewable Materials, Wood Science and Engineering, College of Forestry, Oregon State University Dr. Kaichang Li is a Professor with the Wood Science and Engineering Department in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. His research has focused on the development and commercialization of “green” adhesives and new natural fiber reinforced polymer composites. His research has resulted in over 80 peer-­‐reviewed publications and, owing to the innovative nature of his work, 14 patent applications. His research group has received several prestigious awards, including The 2007 Presidential Green Chemistry Award. Dr. Li has a PhD in Wood Chemistry from Virginia Tech, a MS in Organic Synthesis and BS in Applied Chemistry both from the South China University of Technology, China. 21 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Linc Cannon linc@ofic.com Director, Forest Resources & Taxation, Oregon Forest Industries Council Linc Cannon is the Director of Forest Resources and Taxation for the Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC), a trade association representing more than 50 Oregon forestland owners and forest products manufacturing-­‐related firms. Its members own more than 90% of Oregon's private large-­‐owner forestland base. For over 20 years, Linc has been responsible for representing industrial forestland owners and forest products manufacturers on a wide range of issues including forest economics, taxation, land use, environmental regulation, transportation, bioenergy, green building and climate change. He works with the Oregon Legislature and executive-­‐branch departments and has served on innumerable working groups and advisory committees. Linc has a B.S. in Forest Management (minor in Business Administration) from Utah State University and an M.S. in Forest Economics from Oregon State University. 22 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Virginia Bob Smith rsmith4@vt.edu Department Head of Sustainable Biomaterials, Professor, and Associate Dean, College of Natural Resources and Environment, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Bob is the head of the Department of Sustainable Biomaterials and Associate Dean for the College of Natural Resources and Environment, and a Professor in Forest Products Business at Virginia Tech. Bob holds a Ph.D. from Virginia Tech in Forest Products Marketing, a MBA from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, and a B.S. in Wood and Fiber Utilization from Michigan Tech. Bob has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in the areas of wood science, business management, and forest products marketing. He is the Director of the Center for Forest Products Business (a collaborative effort among the forest products industry, state and federal agencies, and the university). His research efforts have focused in industrial marketing and new opportunities for wood in world markets. Prior to completing his Ph.D., he worked for a major U.S. manufacturer of wood products for 14 years as a production manager and sales representative in the Midwest. Charles William Becker III charlie.becker@dof.virginia.gov Utilization and Marketing Manager, Virginia Department of Forestry Charlie has worked for the Virginia Department of Forestry for over 26 years, first as an area forester in southwest Virginia and then as the Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Forester. For the last 14 years he has served as the Utilization & Marketing Manager. His duties include developing information on forest products, innovations, resources, markets, and the economic importance of Virginia's forest resources, with an emphasis on improving utilization, increasing value-­‐added, addressing changing markets and promoting economic development. He has obtained and administered over one million dollars in grant funds including projects dealing with biomass energy, forest markets promotion, forest certification, urban wood utilization and specialty forest products. Several of these projects included partnering with Universities, other agencies and non-­‐government organizations. Charlie is a Certified Forester and obtained his B.S. Degree in Forestry and Wildlife from Virginia Tech and a Master’s Degree in Forestry from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 23 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Dave Nutter dnutter@vt.edu Faculty, Office of Economic Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Dave Nutter has been an administrative faculty member at Virginia Tech for 24 years working in the communications and marketing and for the last nine years with the Office of Economic Development. Dave has worked on a number of projects for OED that included active community participation. Other projects Dave worked on include a target market study for Bath County, New River Valley Nanotechnology Cluster Study, Life Sciences market analysis for the Roanoke and New River Valley, Southern Virginia polymer industry cluster outreach initiative and the multi-­‐million dollar Department of Labor workforce training grant that prepared students and incumbent workers for mandatory requirements of electronic health records. Dave served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 2002 – 2012 where he served on the Committee on Science and Technology, Committee on Health, Welfare and Institution and the Joint Commission on Health Care. He is enrolled in Virginia Tech’s master of public health program and will complete his degree in summer 2014. Governor McDonnell appointed him to the State Board of the Virginia Community College System. He also serves on the board of One Care of Southwest Virginia, a substance abuse organization, and the board of the Virginia Rural Health Council. Scott Rennecker srenneck@vt.edu Associate Professor, Department of Sustainable Materials, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Scott Renneckar is an associate professor in the Department of Sustainable Biomaterials at Virginia Tech. Dr. Renneckar studied at Virginia Tech and the University of California, Berkeley where he received his BS/PHD and MS degrees, respectively. His research is interdisciplinary related to the materials chemistry of converting biomass into useful materials and feedstocks. He is an affiliate faculty member of VT’s Macromolecular Science and Engineering program, VT’s Materials Science and Engineering Department, VT’s Institute of Critical Science and Technology, and the Joint Bioenergy Institute-­‐a Lawrence Berkeley Lab affiliate. He teaches courses on biomass conversion, and the physical properties of biobased materials. Current research projects involve the characterization and fractionation of biomass, development of nanocellulose composites, extruded lignin based thermoplastics, and novel adhesives for wood composites. He is passionate about developing materials based on modern day CO for long-­‐
term sustainable solutions. Currently, Dr. Renneckar serves as secretary of the Cellulose and Renewable Materials Division of the American Chemical Society. 2 24 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 North Carolina Steve Kelley sskelley@ncsu.edu Professor, Department Head Forest Biomaterials, North Carolina State University Dr. Steve Kelley is a Professor and the Head of the Department of Forest Biomaterials at North Carolina State University. He has also worked on private industry, Eastman Chemical Co., and for the US DOE National Renewable Energy Laboratory. His research interests include the sustainable production of energy and materials from biomass, the application of novel analytic tools to biomass characterization, and life cycle analysis of wood products and energy systems. He has taught classes in Sustainable Building Materials; Wood Chemistry; and Wood Composites. Working with other faculty he supervises five PhD students working on energy production technology, and systems approaches to evaluating the deployment of large scale bioenergy systems. He currently serves on the Editorial Boards of three international science and technology journals, is the President of CORRIM, an organization focused on using life cycle analysis tools to evaluate the performance of materials used in home construction, is a member of the Executive Board of the Institute for Forest Biotechnology, a nonprofit studying the social and environmental opportunities and risks of genetic engineering. Richard Lemaster richard_lemaster@ncsu.edu Research Professor, Director of Wood Machining and Tooling Research Program, North Carolina State University Dr. Richard L. Lemaster is a Research Professor, and Director of the Wood Machining and Tooling Research Program. He graduated with a B.S. in Forestry from Oklahoma State University and a M.S. in Wood Science from Colorado State University. While working on his M.S. he worked as a Research Assistant in the Department of Forestry at Colorado State University. He then worked as an Assistant Specialist in the Forest Products Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. He has worked as a Program Leader and a Research Leader at the University of California at Berkeley as well. Mr. Lemaster joined the Department of Wood and Paper Science in 1993 as a Research Associate. He is a member of the Society of Wood and Science Technology, the Forest Products Society, the American Society for Non-­‐Destructive Testing, the Acoustic Emission Working Group, and Sigma Xi. He is also serving the Sustainable Materials and Technology Program as the lead for undergraduate recruiting, and he teaches classes focused on Sustainable Building Materials and Wood Products Manufacturing. 25 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Richard E. Mullen richard.mullen@domtar.com Research Chemist, Domtar recovering well. Richard Mullen has 36 years’ experience in the paper industry. He graduated with a BS in Biochemistry from Michigan State, and a MBA in Marketing from the University of Wisconsin. He started his career as a research chemist with Allied Paper in Kalamazoo, and he has also worked for International Paper, Georgia Pacific Corp., and for the last 12 years for Domtar. His three daughters have graduated from SEC schools, but are 26 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Keynote Speaker David Shonnard drshonna@mtu.edu Richard and Bonnie Robbins Chair in Sustainable Materials, Department of Chemical Engineering, and Director, Sustainable Futures Institute, Michigan Technological University Evaluating Forest Biomaterials with Environmental Life Cycle Assessment The global carbon cycle (GCC) produces terrestrial biomass at a rate of about 120 GtC/yr, and with more than 50% involving the Earth’s forests. Michigan’s forests cover about 55% of the state’s land area, provide outdoor recreation opportunities, support 150,000 jobs, contribute over $12 billion to Michigan's economy each year, and increase in growth above current harvest levels (MI DNR, http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-­‐153-­‐30301-­‐-­‐-­‐,00.html). Before considering more intensive harvesting of MI forests for biomaterials, it is important to consider possible environmental impacts. This presentation will discuss how a method termed environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) can provide comprehensive understanding of forest products at a systems level and can help identify opportunities and challenges in forest-­‐based biomaterials. Biography Dr. Shonnard received a B.S. in Chemical/Metallurgical Engineering from the University of Nevada-­‐Reno in 1983, an M.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of California-­‐
Davis in 1985, a Ph.D. from the University of California-­‐Davis in 1991, received postdoctoral training in bioengineering at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 1990-­‐1993, and was a visiting instructor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1993. He has been on the faculty in the Department of Chemical Engineering at Michigan Technological University since 1993. Dr. David Shonnard has over 20 years of academic experience in sustainability issues in the chemical industry and green engineering. He is co-­‐author of the textbooks “Green Engineering: Environmentally-­‐Conscious Design of Chemical Processes”, published by Prentice Hall in 2002, and “Sustainable Engineering: Concepts, Design, and Case Studies”, published by Prentice Hall in 2012. His current research interests are in forest-­‐based biofuel processes, environmental life cycle assessments of advanced biofuels, and K-­‐grey (kindergarten – senior citizen) engineering education. His experiences in LCA methods and applications include a 1-­‐year sabbatical at the Eco-­‐efficiency Analysis Group at BASF AG in Ludwigshafen, Germany 27 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 and contributions to National Academy of Sciences publications on green chemistry / engineering / sustainability in the chemical industry. Dr. Shonnard has co-­‐authored over 100 peer-­‐reviewed publications, conference proceedings papers, and technical reports. He and received numerous honors and awards for teaching and research into environmental issues of the chemical industry, including the1998 NSF-­‐ Lucent Technologies Industrial Ecology Research Fellowship, 2003 Ray Fahien Award from the American Society for Engineering Education, and a Richard and Bonnie Robbins Chair Professorship in Sustainable Use of Materials, 2009. 28 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Response letter -­‐ State House Representative The following is a letter from State House Representative, Scott Dianda, to Michael A. Finney, President and CEO of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC), about the importance of the Michigan Biomaterials Conference. Dear Mr. Finney, Last week, a staffer from my office attended a conference organized by Michigan Technological University and sponsored by the Michigan Society of American Foresters, the focus of which was on developing a Michigan Biomaterials Initiative. The conference brought together people from industry, academia and government in Michigan and from states that have successfully developed biomaterials clusters in their economies. In the Upper Peninsula, where my district is located, we have a vital, underdeveloped resource in our forests. And as I have learned, researchers are developing new ways to put this resource to work for us. Forest products have moved beyond the traditional paper and flooring industries, although these businesses are and will continue to be an important part of Michigan’s economy. Researchers have developed plastics, carbon fiber and even medications made from wood. Woody biomass is a source of cheap, renewable energy, and should be a part of Michigan’s energy future. The conference’s stated goal was to look at gaps in technology that could be the focus of future research, as well as to brainstorm what educational institutions like MTU need to do in order to educate people to work in the biomaterials industry. It was a productive conversation that set the stage for future discussion, particularly between industry and academia. Throughout the two day discussion, however, conversation continued to circle back how Michigan could foster a biomaterials cluster. What incentives, if any, can Michigan provide to grow companies that add value to timber? Where should the forest products industry partner -­‐-­‐ The auto industry? Dow Chemical? Where would transportation infrastructure be the most helpful? How can we leverage public-­‐private partnerships to innovate and train workers? These are questions for economic development experts, and I hope the MEDC will take a seat at the table as the discussion continues. I am happy that the Governor convened the Forestry Summit this year and has made renewable energy one of the focuses of his administration. I hope that your folks at the MEDC understand the positive impact they can have on what develops. The MEDC has been a great partner in helping start and expand businesses in the UP. I look forward to talking with you more about what we can do to grow the biomaterials industry in the Michigan. Sincerely, State Representative Scott Dianda Serving Michigan's 110th House District 29 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Proceedings of the Breakout Sessions Participants were randomly stratified by sector into ten breakout groups and instructed to determine educational objectives/outcomes desirable to biomaterials related programs in Michigan and rate the importance of each by level of education on a scale of 1-­‐5, where 1 is the lowest importance. Each group member was provided with the following worksheet (Figure 3, 4) and list of soft skills clusters (Table 1) that cut across disciplines so that they would focus on skills that are specific to biomaterials or consider these soft skills in the context of biomaterials. Groups were also asked to identify barriers to Michigan being a leader in the biomaterials sector and preferable alternatives to the name “biomaterials”. The following comments are unfiltered responses from the breakout session group summaries, individual worksheets, and easel paper pads used by groups for notes. Comments and suggestions are separated by the broad categories identified (followed by the total number of separate comments in that category in parenthesis). 30 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Educational Process*
Learning Objectives/ Outcomes
2-yr
4-yr
Graduate
Continuing
Knowledge
Skills/Abilities
Behaviors
*rate the importance of each objective/outcome by level of education on a
scale of 1-5, where 1 is of lowest importance
Figure 3. Front side of worksheet for break-­‐out sessions, including a diagram of the biomaterials life cycle. 31 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Michigan Biomaterials, MI SAF Conference INDIVIDUAL Worksheet, October 3-4, 2013
Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Research
Technology
Alternatives to the name “Biomaterials”:
Ecosystem Materials
Ecomaterials
Sustainable Biomaterials
Forest Biomaterials
Ecosystem Products
Bio-based Products
Bioproducts
Sustainable Natural Products
Forest Products
Ecosystem Provisioning Services
Sustainable Natural Resources
Others?....
Figure 4. Reverse side worksheet for break-­‐out sessions, including a diagram of the biomaterials life cycle and suggestions for alternative names to “biomaterials.” 32 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Table 1. Soft Skills Clusters. 1. Communication Skills: Work with multiple approaches Listen effectively Aware and sensitive to diversity Communicate accurately and concisely Share ideas to multiple audiences Effective oral communication Communicate pleasantly and 5. Professionalism Skills: professionally Effective relationships with customers, Effective written communications businesses and the public Ask good questions Accept and apply critique and direction in Communicate appropriately and the work place professionally using social media Trustworthy with sensitive information Understand their role and realistic career 2. Decision Making/Problem Solving: expectations Identify and analyze problems Deal effectively with ambiguity Take effective and appropriate action Maintain appropriate décor and demeanor Realize the effect of decisions Select appropriate mentor and acceptance Creative and innovative solutions of advice Transfer knowledge from one situation to another 6. Experiences: Engage in life-­‐long learning Related work or internship experiences Think abstractly about problems Teamwork experiences Leadership experiences 3. Self-­‐Management Skills: Project management experiences Efficient and effective work habits Cross disciplinary experiences Self-­‐starting Community engagement experiences Well-­‐developed ethic, integrity and International experiences loyalty Sense of urgency to address and 7. Leadership Skills: complete tasks See the “big picture” and think Work well under pressure strategically Adapt and apply appropriate technology Recognize when to lead and when to follow Dedication to continued professional Respect and acknowledge contributions development from others Recognize and deal constructively with 4. Teamwork Skills: conflict Productive as a team member Build professional relationships Positive and encouraging attitude Motivate and lead others Punctual and meets deadlines Recognize change is needed and lead the Maintains accountability to the team change effort Reproduced from Crawford, P., Lang, S., Fink, W., Dalton, R., and Fielitz, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of soft skills: What is important for new graduates? Washington , DC: Association of Public and Land-­‐grant Universities. 33 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Breakout Session Findings Barriers to Michigan Being a Leader in The Biomaterials Sector Figure 5. Word cloud of the number of responses in each broad category as identified by breakout session groups during the Michigan Biomaterials Conference. Workforce and Current Education (29) •
Perception is industry is archaic, so students don’t want to go that route. •
Education about forest industry careers, starting at a younger age. •
Re-­‐education doesn't work very well, long term process. •
Early exposure during the major. •
Make industry more appealing to students. Keep a mixture of hard skills “timber management” with ecology. •
New type of students that does not want to be out in the field as much. Instead of modifying forestry degree maybe a new program is better. New students don’t see what forestry really is they do not see it as green or sustainable. •
Degrees should focus on bio-­‐materials something that graduates do not happen but perhaps students are not interested in a degree like this because the lack of jobs or industry in the state. •
Lack of training for a lot of land to manage, timber skills lacking. •
Lack of loggers, mean age is 60 years of age are we losing the work force. 34 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
Identification of marketable skills. •
Curriculum differences (ex. Physics, engineering, specializations). •
What are employers looking for? Different companies want different degrees, Traditional foresters vs. engineers. •
Long term career options: what can they offer recent graduates? Degree sustainability. •
Companies favoring certain degrees-­‐hire IT or forester? Some foresters may have aptitude for IT, but is the training there? IT person may not have IT degree. •
Electives and emphasis (IT, GIS) lacking or not enough of yet. •
Students don't know forestry knowledge; they do have a lot of research experience and computer skills. They are shocked by basic field skills. •
Students need to be flexible, evolve. •
The amount of exposure to field, real life situations, those that get jobs usually have interns prior. Maybe required internships. •
Career fairs focus for state industry, forestry career fairs non-­‐existent. •
Generation gap in technology (not caught up). Market Direction (knowns and unknowns) (23) •
We live in a global market. •
Need to understand the markets realistically. Longer term sustainability. There is a lack of understanding. •
New pulp mills near impossibility. No new plants, no new takeaways. •
What are the high value-­‐added products for the future? What are the known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Need out of box thinking to build new program. •
Economics (more expensive here than in other areas). •
Lack of access to the market. •
No plan for utilization of forest resources (short and long term). •
Variable needs of industry. •
University’s related to harvesting industry, not so many relationships to manufacturers. •
Products come from Michigan (incentives), Promotion of substitution for local products. •
We import so many building materials. No marketing of local wood products. •
Lack of market entrepreneurship-­‐ risk takers. •
Diversify market in the types of wood products. Entertain the idea of diversifying even within a niche market). •
Lack of marketing/selling our resources. 35 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
Don’t need any more taxes to develop this industry, need legislation and incentives. •
Shipping and exporting. Costs are very high, small town ports/docks are gone. •
Oil products are going to be crushed in the future so new ways to make things/products without oil will be helpful. You need to be ready for what will happen in 50 years. •
Transportation costs create a high raw material price which makes it hard to get things started and make bio-­‐fuel opportunities competitive against oil. •
Unknown future resource/policy conditions. •
We need to work on exports. The product needs to go where the demand is and trade to Canada is possible. Federal government should assist with this. Public Perception of Timber Management Industry (22) •
Culture in UP is on ecosystem side. People do not want to see clearcuts in forests. •
It’s perception of either/or. Environment or industry. •
If working indoors, hire an engineer. If outdoors, hire a forester. •
Misinformation-­‐ negative opinions about logging, social acceptability. •
Perception of forest industry is archaic. •
Pure Michigan, marketing (MI has lots of trees, but doesn’t show we manage them). •
Educate public so that they don’t think of timber harvest as a “bad thing” on public lands. They need to see the value and utility, not just the aesthetic. The don’t get the message that cutting is ok/needed/desirable in many cases. •
Perception of the forestry in the public’s eye is a problem they don’t want the trees cut or don’t understand the life cycle of trees. •
Most of Michigan’s population is urbanized, unaware of the reality of natural resources industry, keep timber locked up. •
No logging where most people live, people don’t see it, people don’t understand it. •
Michigan identified as an automobile state, people don’t think about natural resources. •
Social/cultural issues. Mentality is that harvesting should be avoided as much as possible. Not realistic when it comes to industry development. •
People don’t understand how harvesting recreates natural disturbances that would otherwise be catastrophic. People don’t understand forest succession, don’t know about forestry, and don’t know what logging is all about. Need education and exposure to this. •
Unwillingness to manage by private, non-­‐industrial forest owners. •
People don't know they're using forest products. •
Gardening, agriculture analogy isn’t perceived. 36 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings •
Private owners don't want to harvest, not making money. •
Land owners own land for recreation not bio-­‐ products harvesting. Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Political Support (17) •
MDARD incentives to forest land owners. •
Regulatory environment/politics/policy. •
Social research consulting firm should be used to confirm to legislators, development people that we need to do things. •
Ethanol, energy positive but no permits from government regulatory agencies. •
Political field (higher energy costs; lower transportation infrastructure; wood not always available (ie particle board plant gone out of business). •
Federal support has been present but need more support from state. •
Legal constraints-­‐(Deed restriction). •
Unions do not react to change very quickly and so mills can’t afford labor and are moving. But it is also about finding the skilled labors that are ready to work. •
Availability and willingness of state, federal, or private. •
Tax/policy barrier, lack of tax incentives. For biomass (big one from some positions) OR are incentives taking away from the other products like particle board. •
Perception of labor relations. Michigan has a reputation/reality of being a strong union state, keeps companies out. •
We need a clear streamlined pathway to expedite regulatory processes. •
Lack of guidance, need some sort of a state facilitator to help companies establish. -­‐
Could create markets using legislative mandates, like other states. -­‐
Could create economic incentives for companies. -­‐
Could have an industry specialist at the state level. Industry Needs (13) •
Getting university research and technology out in the field. •
Industry needs to get more involved in innovation. •
Industry needs to communicate needs better to public and policy makers. •
Lack of effective management by private and industrial foresters. •
Incentives for companies trying to develop new uses? •
Understanding of wood. What does Biomaterials mean? Not just bio-­‐energy. 37 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
Look at the whole package -­‐ not best use for all forests. •
Complacency, difficulty with capital procurement. •
Lack of stakeholder cooperation. •
Industry competition-­‐ pulp/paper mills see biomass plants etc… as competing for the same wood. •
People not willing to take risks and invest. •
Need to develop the current businesses, keep current jobs in the state. Funding for Educational Programs (12) •
Funding is big barrier: Increase enrollment. •
PR/Advertising vs Education. •
Michigan State, Michigan Tech, University of Michigan should work together to get their best bang for their buck. They should also cooperate with the industry to create programs that then create jobs for students. •
Make non-­‐profits the connections between universities. •
Need highly skilled hourly workers. Worker education? FUNDING! Even in the high school, like the workshops. •
Commitment (from higher ups). •
Scholarships. •
Connections between university and industry! •
Maybe faculty don't have experience, lacking faculty lines in biomaterial fields. •
College is expensive-­‐ Universities “pricing themselves out.” -­‐
Forestry degree: $80,000 when a Timber cruiser makes: $25,000 a year Supply and Demand (7) •
Slow growth rate (tons/acre/year). •
Resource availability (product and technology). •
Access to the raw material. •
Supply and demand of trees harvested/removed vs growth (question posed by Maine)-­‐-­‐
Not the same as Maine, trying to prove that MI has steady supply. •
Availability of wood ( land ownership). •
Too much public land, forest service doesn’t harvest very much. As compared to where more land is private, readily harvested. 38 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings •
Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 We are growing twice as much as we’re harvesting, loosing just as much as we’re growing (mortality). Location (5) •
Population near forests. •
Size (Copper Harbor to Detroit longer than Detroit to NYC). •
Michigan U.P. is at times connected more other states around it rather than the lower U.P. The great lakes are at time barriers or geographic barriers to trade. This is also an opportunity for commerce. •
We have wood, we have water, we have a workforce, why does nobody want to come here? •
Plants need to be placed in area within close proximity to resources (hardwood forest). 39 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 “Biomaterials” Alternate Names Figure 6. Word cloud of individual words in titles of potential educational programs or alternate names to “biomaterials” as identified by breakout session groups during the Michigan Biomaterials Conference. Many groups suggested having a survey of high school students, undergrads, industry sectors, etc. • Why eliminate “forest” from name? Combine forest and bio aspect. •
Some people (student) are tired of term “sustainability.” •
“Sustainability” is overused, “Renewable” is preferred. •
Differentiate Initiative and names of Majors, Certificates, or Departments. •
Want to get away from the idea of forestry as boards and paper. •
Use marketing to an advantage. Name of programs has to appeal to the uninformed but provide an education that is employable. •
Forest should be in there, people realize where the product comes from. •
Renewable is more appealing, realizing that forests don’t disappear, ties in with Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, young students learning about renewability already in elementary schools. •
Biomaterials is already claimed / Can’t use biomaterials-­‐ already used/defined/branded by medical industry. •
Do not include fossil fuels into the biofuels/biomaterials definition. •
A focus should include using recently fixed carbon materials. •
Sustainable or renewable has preconceived meanings attached, sustainable (controversy). 40 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
Forest bio-­‐materials but we do not want to limit it just “forest”./ Forest biomaterials-­‐ too narrow, would never gain traction. •
What is the goal of renaming? •
Inclusive of all biomaterials extracted from ecosystems, like Sustainable Natural Products (SNP). But main focus is on the forest products aspect. SNP allows for focus to evolve and adapt with needs/development. E.g. Brazil-­‐ deforestation, can it be considered SNP? Removing forests, but putting in plantations. •
Governor’s summit specific to forest products, not necessarily everything else that can be extracted. Focus on wood. •
“Products” better fits value added/processed where “materials” seems less processed and altered. •
Sustainable Materials summer camp (month long) and extra certificate or minor, no need to rename or add in new departments/majors. •
Forest Products – too specific to wood. Table 2. Alphabetical list of alternative names for “Biomaterials” suggested from break-­‐out sessions and group summaries. Renewable Ecosystem Resources* Bio-­‐based Products Biocyclical Materials Renewable Forest Materials* Biocyclical Products* Renewable Forest Products Biocyclical Resources Renewable Materials Bioproducts* Renewable Natural Resources Bioproducts Utilization Renewable Resources Bioproducts Ecomaterials Sustainable Biomaterials Forest Biomaterials Sustainable Ecomaterials Forest Engineers Sustainable Ecosystem Resources Forest Resources Sustainable Ecosystem Utilization Green Materials Sustainable Forest Biomaterials Green Products* Sustainable Forest Bioproducts Natural Resource Utilization Sustainable Forest Materials Renewable Earth Materials Sustainable Forest Products* Renewable Ecosystem Materials Sustainable Natural Products* Renewable Ecosystem Products *indicates a preferred name from group summaries 41 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings 0 *Sustainable Forest Products *Renewable Natural Resources Sustainable Forest Biomaterials Sustainable Forest Bioproducts Bio-­‐based Products *Biocyclical Products *Bioproducts *Green Products *Renewable Forest Materials Renewable Forest Products *Sustainable Natural Products Biocyclical Materials Biocyclical Resources Bioproducts Uylizayon Ecomaterials Forest Biomaterials Forest Engineers Forest Resources Green Materials Natural Resource Uylizayon Renewable Earth Materials Renewable Ecosystem Materials *Renewable Materials Renewable Ecosystem Products Renewable Ecosystem Resources Renewable Resources Bioproducts *Sustainable Biomaterials Sustainable Ecomaterials Sustainable Ecosystem Resources Sustainable Ecosystem Uylizayon *Sustainable Forest Materials Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 1 2 3 4 Figure 7. The number of individual and group responses indicating the same wording of alternative names for “Biomaterials”. *indicates a preferred name from the Group Summaries. 42 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Educational Processes Knowledge Figure 8. Word cloud of knowledge and educational needs for students in biomaterials related industries in Michigan identified by breakout session groups during the Michigan Biomaterials Conference. Forest Operations Skills (26) •
Impacts of utilization on forests and forest soil. Students should know utilization standards. Materials and product usage is big. Understanding the manufacturing process. What the state needs is college grads who know the industry, how to use forest products in a realistic way, understand how to utilize local resources, utilize local species. Need to know applied forest products (Mechanical engineering approach). (7) •
Keep hands-­‐on field experience. Timber skills, knowledge missing, not enough field classes. They are shocked by basic field skills. Undergrads don’t get out into the woods very much, not enough practical scenarios or multiple cover types. Need exposure, but we need to be educated to be able to get practical experience. (5) 43 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
Need classes to understand environmental regulations and how to obtain permits, what needs to be done. Coursework on how to handle regulatory issues. Need to understand regulations for building roads, stream crossings. (3) •
Need to understand forest operations from beginning to end, from growing to harvesting to processing. If you know how the environment cycles, you need to know how technology and the industry cycles. Follow agricultural model. (3) •
Certificate programs designed to meet on the spot needs (Lumber grading, machine operator, master logger programs, saw sharpeners, maintenance). Need for 2 year, field forester level again. (2) •
Two tracks: one for the field, one for research. Practical and research. •
Continuing education for emerging technologies. •
Foresters to recognize potential bio-­‐ products and ensure ample supply. Students need to be trained in current market needs (eg. pulpwood). •
No wood science programs in Michigan, but once you know the part of a forest you need for a new emerging product in bio-­‐materials that can be told to the foresters so they can grow stands in a useful way. •
Industrial ecology. •
Entomology and pathology training lacking. •
Need forest engineering skills. Road building, stream crossings, etc… Wood Engineering and Chemistry Skills (12) •
Engineering with forestry minors, Forestry with Engineering/Products minors. (2) •
Undergrad in engineering, Masters in Forestry/Natural Resources (Challenge in attracting engineers to forestry degree). •
Could start trying to attract students with other degrees to natural resource minors (time availability issue). •
Chemical and mechanical engineers need ecology/ forestry geared courses. •
Classes on pulp/paper making process. Wood technology, what’s on the horizon for wood uses, new processes? Not necessarily the technical, but an overview of how it fits into the big picture. (3) •
We need a program with chemistry, wood products, chemistry / organic chemistry in wood products, properties of woods. A program that maybe only focus on from harvesting trees on not growing trees, less ecology. This program is not for someone interested in traditional forestry, it’s a lot more chemistry less actual forestry related. •
Well rounded in chemistry, engineering, to be able to grasp how to develop local resources. •
Wood is wood? understand what other plants are, chemical properties. 44 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Communication Skills (6) •
Inner/status updates. •
Outer/outreach + status. •
Individual/networking. •
Collaboration – undergraduate projects. •
Information systems management. •
Relate goals to public. Other coursework suggestions •
Minors in economics, business, information systems. •
Students that know the global market and the business aspect of the industry. •
Statistical inferences (gathering data is not just a mechanical process). •
More agricultural skills. •
Students should be more aware of recreational aspects. •
Students should be aware of policy and quality of life. •
Maintain integration of forestry and wildlife, impact on wildlife. •
Need more classes with focus on conservation and stewardship. •
More understanding and education in private owned industry-­‐not just how public lands are operated. 45 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Skills and Abilities See the list of soft skills clusters provided for conference participants (page 30). Figure 9. Word cloud of desired skills and abilities of students in biomaterials related industries in Michigan identified by breakout session groups during the Michigan Biomaterials Conference. Communication Skills (17) •
Huge social component. •
Writing and communication skills required. o Can be Integrated into technical classes o Would lessen need for general education classes •
Need foresters to talk to the public and emphasis how the goals of the industry and the goals of the public converge. Show them how our goals are their goals. Examples: o How it increases deer population, enhance bird habitat, economic benefit. o Multiple use forests o Explain carbon sequestering to the public and how management plays into that. •
Effective listening to diversity of opinions. Technical Skills (12) •
Don’t ignore basic unit of education (trees). •
Need to balance technical and soft skills. 46 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
Technical skills – build to B.S. – grad work, research. •
They should hit the ground running. •
Students need a practical, hands on, broad based knowledge with the ability to take to research. •
Field techniques for all and specializations (business, environmental science, marketing, chemistry) across different people. Problem Solving/Critical Thinking Skills (9) •
Learn how to learn, never stop learning. •
It’s compatibility. You can always train people if they are willing to learn. Industry evaluates applicants how they will fit into industrial environment. •
Advisory board can help determine if students can work under conditions. •
Statistics thinking, systems thinking. •
Analyzing problems. •
Dealing with information, transferring knowledge across situations. Professionalism Skills (8) •
Marketability, employability, etiquette, tidy. •
Business manner, information systems. •
There are a lot of skills that can be learned on the job, not as much of the focus of what universities want students to leave with. •
By junior year or later, need a paid internship, professional experience. •
Dedication to continual professional development. •
Maybe recruit veterans as models for professional behaviors. Teamwork Skills (6) •
Work in team environment, productive team members. •
Collaboration skills: Students should understand how soft skills relate to technical collaboration. •
Few lone rangers are successful. •
Relationships with industry/how to start collaborations. Have advisory board. •
Capable of facilitating group discussion, lack of practical experience in teams. 47 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Self-­‐Management Skills (3) •
Students don't know what to do, they need to have their hand held, not self-­‐motivated. •
Students need to flexible, evolve. •
Self-­‐starting, have drive. Number of individual responess, specific to soV skill clusters 18 16 Skills Clusters IdenXfied 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 10. The relative number of responses of specific skills clusters identified by participants in the Michigan Biomaterials Conference as being desirable of students in biomaterials related industries in Michigan. Behaviors •
Risk takers. o We need risk takers in business: model has to stand on its own. It can’t rely just on initial grants and short-­‐term funds from government. •
Creative. 48 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
Collaborative, willing to make connections. •
Stewardship ethic, outdoor appreciation. •
Professional ethic. •
Initiative. •
Goal oriented, carry through. •
Global Citizen, world understanding coming with the new GLOBAL, empathetic. •
Behavior skill sets should be emphasized more (showing up for work). •
OK with cost of college vs reward of job. •
Willingness to be in the field. o We have a hard time finding a forester who is willing to go in the field and do the actual work. Seems universities producing too many foresters who won’t use a paint gun, cruise timber. •
Willing to invest. •
Adaptable, develop open mindedness, ability to deal with change. •
Common sense. •
Volunteerism. Research and Technology Gaps and Needs Figure 11. Word cloud of gaps and needs in research related to biomaterials in Michigan identified by breakout session groups during the Michigan Biomaterials Conference. 49 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Research Areas •
Build economics, efficience into research. •
Applied business into research, small business independent research. •
Information more easily shared today. Open-­‐source research allows information to be disseminated more readily. •
Social, tie into public values. •
Identifying new markets. •
How can we understand the whole industry, improvement, sustainable industry. •
Cost-­‐benefit analysis. Specific areas •
Forestry and Forest product engineering o Road building. o Biomaterials with no waste. o High end value added products. o Future of forest management. o Streamline existing biofuels. o Bio-­‐based replacement for fossil fuel products. -
Plant prospecting for pharmaceuticals and industrial substrates -
Nano cellulose for industrial products o Anything that has oil products in it can be changed and switched over to something that has bio-­‐mass. The new materials have to be cost competitive as well against what is already there. o A lot of biomass in invasive species can we come up with ways to develop markets for products from these species as a form of control. o Biopolymers working with DOW. o Wood plastic composites. o Algal biomass. o Refabrication of infrastructure, building technology. o Product consistency in field stock. •
Ecosystem Services o Food, nuts, develop a product that has huge impact (like cancer prevention). o Mushroom pigment salmon study, antioxidant. 50 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 o How trees communicate via chemicals, water transport. o Carbon sequestration (money of the federal side). o Use of invasive species in biofuels. o Forest health issues. Technology •
Cross discipline utilizations of technology (what can we take from medical, mining, transportation industries). •
Better technology over time. o GPS, Monitoring remote locations in real time. •
Use communication to share application of technology. •
Streamline existing biofuel technology. •
Global scoping of energy techniques, nano-­‐technology, biopolymers. •
Use the research corridor. •
Needs to be ergonomic, environmentally friendly, state of the art. •
Consider how to retain people replaced by technology (jobs). •
Avoid technology mis-­‐matches (ethanol not applicable to meet needs, too expensive, produces more CO2 than saved, high water use, lower fuel mileage). •
Technology Gaps. o Eco industrial parks o Harvesting systems o Portable manufacturing technology ! Need accessible demonstration projects for public awareness/acceptance Recruitment and Retention •
Outreach. Exposure needs to be right from the beginning. Don’t need to understand it right away, but need exposure so later in the educational process; they can make the connections right away. Get students on campus before school starts. Get them exposed, similar to football camp or sports camp. (Pre-­‐forestry orientation camp.). Outreach in high schools. High schools with vocational education spark interests, counselors familiar with forestry/industry. Start young. (5) •
Many students want high paying jobs. Attracted to higher paying jobs such as engineering. Students respond to paid internships, promises of jobs, scholarships. (3) •
Degree sustainability. Perceived value from programs. Destination major. (3) 51 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
How to attract university people to industry is a challenge. Don’t lose sight of technology programs. Electives and emphasis (IT, GIS). (2) •
Need to make all students feel valued, e.g. two year vs four year student. University vs. community college perception. (2) •
If a department cannot get students and staff for new program it will not be successful. Other General Ideas Related to Educational Processes •
Need more Co-­‐op programs. Sending students out into the real world. job shadow. Internships. Foster partnerships. More internships and training is needed like Germany so that industry is more involved with students as they are going through school. Co-­‐ops (Kettering University) that give them experience not just book knowledge. The amount of exposure to field exposure, those that get jobs usually have interns prior. Maybe required internships. Need paid internship in the industry. (8) •
Universities are not flexible enough for the industry in the state. We also need to look at the consumers need/want out of bio-­‐materials which can help form a new program. We need to find what industries are already here in Michigan (core industries like car parts) are looking to replace or change how they make their products. Composites, glues, polymers. What is the industry looking for? What kind of student do they need? Industry really needs to work with schools so that they can get the workers they need after graduating. Vtech has modeled their programs around local industries. (6) •
Faculty doesn’t have industry experience. Hiring faculty that have been in industry or have intimate working knowledge is imperative for shaping programs. Students need interaction with faculty from industry. More outreach and integration with industry. (5) •
There is an “old work force”. Young people have different perspective. Have way to bring young and old generations together. Be intentional about it. Bring in experienced professionals. Let them help students design research projects, etc. Different perspectives. Bring them together. Education/Industry. Relationships are key. They happen because people make an effort. Education should facilitate this skill. Use retirees to assess coursework, share knowledge and experience. (5) •
Keep the public informed as to what’s going on. Misinformation and perception. (2) •
Some industry owners do not have higher education but have needs. Should be able to help these people. Executive PhD program in renewable ecosystem products, resources. (2) •
There are issues with demand and offering courses. Broader net of educational institutions. Emphasis different at the different universities, broad (MTU-­‐ industrial, MSU-­‐research/public policy, U of M watches football….) Look at unique facilities you have and develop unique programs around that. Do not make copies of other states programs, make unique, effective courses to meet future needs. (5) 52 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 •
We have a hard time finding a forester who is willing to go in the field and do the actual work. Seems universities producing too many foresters who won’t use a paint gun, cruise timber. At two years, we need forest technicians who are willing to get in the woods and actually do timber cruising and the old fashioned skills. Need more grads coming from 2 years, technical skills. (2) •
Teach students primarily in skills to deal with high end market first, then some of the low-­‐end products. Unfortunately, biomass products fit into the low end in current market. Degrees should focus on bio-­‐materials, something that graduates do not lean towards, but perhaps students are not interested in a degree like this because the lack of jobs or industry in the state. Biomaterials definition is vague, sampling should be more general because products can vary. Realizing potential or value added products from waste bio-­‐products. (5) •
Where is the separation between programs? (Forestry, wildlife, biomaterials). Education lacking about forest industry careers. Should start at a younger age. Biomaterials and products should be completely different program from creating foresters. (2) •
Think of mills or current industry as commodities. Universities can help failing industries reinvent. •
Companies favoring certain degrees-­‐hire IT or forester? Some foresters may have aptitude for IT, but is the training there? IT person may not have IT degree. •
Why does Finland treat foresters better than doctors, comfortable with using wood products? •
Given the diversity of needs, perhaps think of curriculum to address all students. How do you fit what SAF requires and what the university wants to fit into the curriculum together? •
No talk of new degree program, alter what is existing. Needs to be focused early on, right now so much overlap. •
Need for Master’s Degree or furthered education always increasing. Online coursework, continuing education coursework. Oregon and Virginia Tech have online Master’s degrees. Acquired skills as a series of certificates that you build throughout a career. Education should be lifelong and maybe break the mode of 4 year blocks. •
Identifying what biomaterials MI specializes at producing: Coated free sheet, corrugated brand board, furniture, softwood lumber: 2 year programs could help provide specialties in these products. •
Universities should offer shorter certificate programs (community college programs). Big difference in what you look for between 2 year and 4 year education (and none). •
More applied programs (time in the lab and out in the field). 53 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings •
Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Broad coverage vs Specific instruction. Required classes aren’t just environment related. Not always room for humanities courses when your focus and ideal job should need the information from a 2-­‐yr program 54 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Table 3. Educational Processes and Learning Objectives identified by participants in the Michigan Biomaterials Conference as needed for 2-­‐year, 4-­‐year, Graduate, and Continuing Education academic programs associated with biomaterials industry. Numbers are rankings of importance (1-­‐
5 scale, 1 is lowest). skills/knowledge area 2-­‐year timber cruising, paint guns, old skills 4-­‐year DEQ classes, regulatory issues, 2 tracks (practical or research), paper making, wood products, manufacturing frontiers forest management biology Silviculture intern experience critical thinking innovation communication teamwork ethics economics lab analytical skills Markets data interpretation ethics, values support field skills trade types, “co-­‐op project”, certification 2 2 2 5 3 3 5 5 3 5 1 1 5 5 “sustainability” (ecology, climate, soils, bridging fields into Chem. Eng. broad based, value added products, wood structural properties, business, ecology background focus specialist skilled, plant operator, shifts and broadens perspectives 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 3 5 5 basic science, math 5 broad ed. base with greater application computer, software analytical thought process orienteering, silviculture Graduate Professional MF, 4+1 options w/communications, business, biomaterials Continuing natural resources enterprise specialize research specialize suite of options to move on 5 5 4 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 3 4 2 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 1 3 5 5 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 55 MI Biomaterials Conference Proceedings Oct. 3-­‐4, 2013 Cite as: Bal, T.L., Sharik, T.L., Storer, A.J., Hohnholt, C.A., and Abbotts, H.H. (eds.)2013 . Proceedings of the Conference on a Michigan Biomaterials Initiative: The Role of Education, Research, and Technology. School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University. October 3-­‐4, Traverse City, MI. 56