ethanol co-product utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
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.