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

Nebraska CNMP Program 2

Manure P vs. Crop Land P Use

< 25%25 - 50%50 - 100%>100%

Nebraska CNMP Program 3

One-Way Flow of NutrientsIs Underlying Cause

< 25%25 - 50%50 - 100%>100%

Nebraska CNMP Program 4

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

FERMENTATION

YEAST, ENZYMES

STILL ALCOHOL & CO2

STILLAGE

DISTILLERS GRAINSWDG, DDG

DISTILLERS SOLUBLESWDGSDDGS

Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE

y = -0.0007x2 + 0.043x + 3.6604

R2 = 0.914

y = 0.0005x2 - 0.0406x + 6.5271

R2 = 0.8867

2.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.0

0 10 20 30 40 50

Level of diet DM (WDG)

Per

form

ance

ADGF:G

Performance for DGS

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

Economics for WDGS

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50WDGS Level

Re

turn

($

/hd

)

0 miles30 miles60 miles100 miles

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

-$143.19

Beef Extension Pagehttp://beef.unl.edu

Beef Reports

Intake

Excretion

Intake-Retention=Excretion

Excretion in feces & urine

Retained nutrients

10-15%

• Excretion numbers using ASABE std approach

AVG MIN MAXDiet 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

Impact of DGS on excretion

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

N intake N excrete N manure N volatilize

lb p

er a

nim

al

0 WDGS30 WDGS

P<0.01

P<0.01

P<0.01

P=0.07

Impact of DGS on N challenge

N mass balance

.27

.35

.52

.59

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

85% corn 85% corn +supplement

byproduct byproduct +supplement

% d

iet P

(D

M-b

asi

s)

mineral P

base diet

NRC

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

Impact of DGS on P challenge

.27

.35

.52

.59

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

85% corn 85% corn +supplement

byproduct byproduct +supplement

% d

iet P

(D

M-b

asi

s)

mineral P

base diet

NRC

Our data

Impact of DGS on P challenge

Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

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

y = 1.03x - 0.011

R2 = 0.31

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

0.050

0.060

0.070

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070

P Intake (kg/hd/d)

Ma

nu

re P

(k

g/h

d/d

)

P Intake kg and Manure P kgLinear (P Intake kg and Manure P kg)

Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report

Dietary P effect on manure

Impact of DGS on P challenge

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) 1,095,000P (#/yr) 134,000

Acres 5,800Time (hr) 910 Haul (mi) 2.0

Value $108,000Cost $52,000

1. Base Scenario (Corn Diet)

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) 219,000 331,000P (#/yr) 127,000 243,000

Acres 5,800 11,100Time (hr) 910 1,000 – 1,300Haul (mi) 2.0 2.9

Value $108,000 $192,000Cost $52,000 $59,000

to $72,000

Can I afford100 to 400 hours

added labor?

and $7,000to $23,000

higher costs?

Can I find 5,400 acres?

Nebraska CNMP Program 21

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)

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 accessible185 bu corn, corn-soybean rotation, ~35 lb P per acre (80 lb P2O5)

Land Requirements, 4yr P basis (acres)

Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report

Impact of DGS on P challenge

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

Nebraska CNMP Program 24

Whole Farm P Balance

No DG Inclusion

40% DG Inclusion

Nebraska CNMP Program 25

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

Nebraska CNMP Program 26

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

Nebraska CNMP Program 27

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

Nebraska CNMP Program 28

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.