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


  • 51 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

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

  • 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


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


Performance for DGS

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


Economics for WDGS

-$143.19

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


Beef Extension Page

http://beef.unl.edu

Beef Reports


Intake

Retained nutrients

10-15%

Excretion

Intake-Retention=Excretion

Excretion in feces & urine


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


Impact of DGS on N challenge

N mass balance

P<0.01

P<0.01

P<0.01

P=0.07


Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

.59

.52

.35

.27

NRC


Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

.59

.52

.35

.27

NRC

Our data


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


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


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 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


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

  • 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)


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


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

No DG Inclusion

40% DG Inclusion


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

  • 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?

  • 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

  • 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