Ethanol Co-Product Utilization
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 28

Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 47 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle Rick Koelsch & Galen Erickson. Manure P vs. Crop Land P Use. < 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% >100%. < 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 100% >100%. One-Way Flow of Nutrients Is Underlying Cause. Public Policy Response.

Download Presentation

Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Ethanol Co-Product Utilization

and its

impact on the environment

-beef cattle

Rick Koelsch & Galen Erickson


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Manure P vs. Crop Land P Use

< 25%

25 - 50%

50 - 100%

>100%


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

< 25%

25 - 50%

50 - 100%

>100%

One-Way Flow of Nutrients

Is Underlying Cause


Public policy response

Public Policy Response

  • Nutrient Management Plan

    • Use manure nutrients efficiently within the land base managed by the livestock operation.

  • Phosphorus Risk Assessment –

    • Potential for P to move from land application site

    • Based upon “source” and “transport” factors

  • Preference to imported commercial nutrients over recycled manure nutrients.


Ethanol plants fed cattle population

Ethanol Plants & Fed Cattle Population


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

DRY MILLING-WDG(+S)

GRAIN

GRIND, WET, COOK

Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE

FERMENTATION

YEAST, ENZYMES

STILL

ALCOHOL & CO2

STILLAGE

DISTILLERS GRAINS

WDG, DDG

DISTILLERS SOLUBLES

WDGS

DDGS


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Performance for DGS

Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep. and 2005 Midwest ASAS


Economics for wdgs

Economics for WDGS

-$143.19

Corn at $3.50/bu; WDGS at 95% of corn price; miles are distance from ethanol plant to feedlot


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Beef Extension Page

http://beef.unl.edu

Beef Reports


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Intake

Retained nutrients

10-15%

Excretion

Intake-Retention=Excretion

Excretion in feces & urine


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Impact of DGS on excretion

  • Excretion numbers using ASABE std approach

  • AVGMINMAX

  • Diet P, %0.310.250.50*

  • P Excretion7.0 lb4.6 lb14.1 lb

  • “old” std13.9 lb

  • Diet CP, %13.312.020.5*

  • N Excretion64 lb57 lb104 lb

  • 150 days fed for an "average" steer


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Impact of DGS on N challenge

N mass balance

P<0.01

P<0.01

P<0.01

P=0.07


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

.59

.52

.35

.27

NRC


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

.59

.52

.35

.27

NRC

Our data


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P effect on manure

Relationship between P intake and manure harvested P (kg/hd/d) for cattle lots.

Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

1. Base Scenario (Corn Diet)

Traditional Corn Based Diet

10,000 head feedlot

13% CP and 0.29% P Diet

Corn/soybeans crop rotation

40% land availability for spreading

Manure applied at 4-year phosphorus rate

Spread with 20 ton truck spreaders


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

1. Base Scenario (Corn Diet)

(1)

N (#/yr)1,095,000

P (#/yr)134,000

Acres5,800

Time (hr)910

Haul (mi)2.0

Value$108,000

Cost $52,000


40 wdgs scenario

40% WDGS Scenario

40% WDGS Diet

10,000 head feedlot

18.7% CP and .49% P Diet

Corn/soybeans crop rotation

40% land availability for spreading

Manure applied at 4-year phosphorus rate

Spread with 20 ton truck spreaders


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

2. 40% WDGS Scenario

(1)(2)

N (#/yr)219,000331,000

P (#/yr)127,000243,000

Acres5,80011,100

Time (hr)910 1,000 – 1,300

Haul (mi)2.02.9

Value$108,000$192,000

Cost $52,000$59,000

to $72,000

Can I afford

100 to 400 hours

added labor?

and $7,000

to $23,000

higher costs?

Can I find

5,400 acres?


Summary of economic factors 0 vs 40 inclusion of dgs

Summary of Economic Factors…0 vs. 40% Inclusion of DGs

  • Costs of DGS use:

    • $7,000 to $24,000 to manure application costs

    • 100 to 350 hours to labor & equipment requirements

    • 5,700 acres to land access requirements

  • Benefits of DGS use:

    • $83,000 in gross manure nutrient value

    • $150,000 to $300,000 in reduced feed costs

      * 10,000 head beef feedlot (40% land available)


Land requirements 4yr p basis acres

Impact of DGS on P challenge

Land Requirements, 4yr P basis (acres)

Feedlot size (hd):250010,00025,000

0 byp 0.30 P1,3205,30013,200

20 byp 0.40 P1,9007,60019,000

40 byp 0.50 P2,50010,00025,000

Assumes: 50% of land area accessible

185 bu corn, corn-soybean rotation, ~35 lb P per acre (80 lb P2O5)

Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report


Ethanol co product utilization and its impact on the environment beef cattle

Manure P vs Fertilizer P

  • 79% of corn acres fertilized in 2003

  • average = 35 lb/ac

  • 8.1 million acres planted

    • (141,750 tons P2O5)

    • (54,871 tons P at 79% acres)

  • 4.5 million feedlot cattle

  • Excrete 12 lb = 54 mil. Lb.

    • (27,000 tons)

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ne/special/agchem04.pdf


Whole farm p balance

Whole Farm P Balance

No DG Inclusion

40% DG Inclusion


Implications of greater p inputs

Implications of Greater P Inputs

  • P Inventory within farm increases at rate of 88,000 vs 180,000 lb P/year faster.

  • Short Term - P Risk Assessment will…

    • Erosion control practices will allow banking of excess P for some period of time…

    • Bank will be filled more quickly with DGS.

  • Long Term - P Risk Assessment will…

    • Reduce fields receiving manure to meet N needs

    • Increase fields receiving manure to meet P needs

    • Increase fields ineligible for manure application


Summary

Summary

  • DGS are economical for feeding

  • DGS supply is dramatically increasing

  • Feeding DGS increases P excretion (manure)

  • Feeding DGS increases N volatilization

  • Use of DGS increases acres and cost

  • But, manure value increased

  • Nebraska opportunity (have acres)

  • Manure distribution challenges


Research opportunities

Research Opportunities?

  • Remove P from DGS, Remove N from DGS

  • Value manure over fertilizer nutrients

    • Reduce/End N volatilization

    • Reduce manure nuisance issues

    • Develop alternative technologies for separating nutrients

  • Reduce bio-availability of P to plants

  • Low P corn, but mass balance issue


Public policy needs

Public Policy Needs

  • Value recycled manure over imported fertilizer nutrients

    • Encourage export of manure

    • Encourage alternative uses of manure

    • Recognize environmental benefits of manure

  • Cautiously apply P-Index triggers for “No Manure” application.

  • Recognize critical differences in nutrient plans for cattle operations based upon DGS use.


  • Login