slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

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


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle' - carsyn


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
slide1

Ethanol Co-Product Utilization

and its

impact on the environment

-beef cattle

Rick Koelsch & Galen Erickson

slide2

Manure P vs. Crop Land P Use

< 25%

25 - 50%

50 - 100%

>100%

slide3

< 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.
slide6

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

slide7

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

slide10

Beef Extension Page

http://beef.unl.edu

Beef Reports

slide11

Intake

Retained nutrients

10-15%

Excretion

Intake-Retention=Excretion

Excretion in feces & urine

slide12

Impact of DGS on excretion

  • Excretion numbers using ASABE std approach
  • AVG MIN MAX
  • Diet P, % 0.31 0.25 0.50*
  • P Excretion 7.0 lb 4.6 lb 14.1 lb
  • “old” std 13.9 lb
  • Diet CP, % 13.3 12.0 20.5*
  • N Excretion 64 lb 57 lb 104 lb
  • 150 days fed for an "average" steer
slide13

Impact of DGS on N challenge

N mass balance

P<0.01

P<0.01

P<0.01

P=0.07

slide14

Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

.59

.52

.35

.27

NRC

slide15

Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

.59

.52

.35

.27

NRC

Our data

slide16

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

slide17

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

slide18

1. Base Scenario (Corn Diet)

(1)

N (#/yr) 1,095,000

P (#/yr) 134,000

Acres 5,800

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

slide20

2. 40% WDGS Scenario

(1) (2)

N (#/yr) 219,000 331,000

P (#/yr) 127,000 243,000

Acres 5,800 11,100

Time (hr) 910 1,000 – 1,300

Haul (mi) 2.0 2.9

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): 2500 10,000 25,000

0 byp 0.30 P 1,320 5,300 13,200

20 byp 0.40 P 1,900 7,600 19,000

40 byp 0.50 P 2,500 10,000 25,000

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

slide23

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.
ad