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
![Page 1: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its
impact on the environment-beef cattle
Rick Koelsch & Galen Erickson
![Page 2: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Nebraska CNMP Program 2
Manure P vs. Crop Land P Use
< 25%25 - 50%50 - 100%>100%
![Page 3: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Nebraska CNMP Program 3
One-Way Flow of NutrientsIs Underlying Cause
< 25%25 - 50%50 - 100%>100%
![Page 4: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Ethanol Plants & Fed Cattle Population
![Page 6: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
DRY MILLING-WDG(+S)GRAIN
GRIND, WET, COOK
FERMENTATION
YEAST, ENZYMES
STILL ALCOHOL & CO2
STILLAGE
DISTILLERS GRAINSWDG, DDG
DISTILLERS SOLUBLESWDGSDDGS
Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE
![Page 7: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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
![Page 8: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 11: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Intake
Excretion
Intake-Retention=Excretion
Excretion in feces & urine
Retained nutrients
10-15%
![Page 12: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
• 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
![Page 13: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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
![Page 14: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
.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
![Page 15: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
.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
![Page 16: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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)
![Page 18: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
(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)
![Page 19: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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
![Page 20: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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?
![Page 21: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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)
![Page 22: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
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
![Page 23: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Nebraska CNMP Program 24
Whole Farm P Balance
No DG Inclusion
40% DG Inclusion
![Page 25: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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
![Page 28: Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062408/56813e00550346895da7dcf1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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.