P1254845960DhinF

1
Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact
on the environment -beef cattle Rick
Koelsch Galen Erickson
2
Manure P vs. Crop Land P Use
3
One-Way Flow of Nutrients Is Underlying Cause
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.

5
Ethanol Plants Fed Cattle Population
6
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
7
Performance for DGS
Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep. and
2005 Midwest ASAS
8
Economics for WDGS
-143.19
Corn at 3.50/bu WDGS at 95 of corn price
miles are distance from ethanol plant to feedlot
9
(No Transcript)
10
Beef Extension Page http//beef.unl.edu
Beef Reports
11
Intake
Retained nutrients 10-15
Excretion
Intake-RetentionExcretion
Excretion in feces urine
12
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

13
Impact of DGS on N challenge
N mass balance
Plt0.01
Plt0.01
Plt0.01
P0.07
14
Impact of DGS on P challenge
Dietary P in Feedlot Diets
.59
.52
.35
.27
NRC
15
Impact of DGS on P challenge
Dietary P in Feedlot Diets
.59
.52
.35
.27
NRC
Our data
16
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
17
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
18
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 108,00
0 Cost 52,000
19
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
20
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?
21
Summary of Economic Factors0 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)

22
Land Requirements, 4yr P basis (acres)
Impact of DGS on P challenge
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
23
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
24
Whole Farm P Balance
No DG Inclusion
40 DG Inclusion
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

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

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

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.