1 / 25

The Role of Animal Agriculture in the Bioeconomy

The Role of Animal Agriculture in the Bioeconomy. Allen Trenkle Iowa State University. Historical Background of Biofuels. Mid-80’s Expansion of wet milling of corn producing high-fructose sugar Co-products mostly exported Established value of co-products as livestock feeds

hayes
Télécharger la présentation

The Role of Animal Agriculture in the Bioeconomy

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Role of Animal Agriculture in the Bioeconomy Allen Trenkle Iowa State University

  2. Historical Background of Biofuels • Mid-80’s • Expansion of wet milling of corn producing high-fructose sugar • Co-products mostly exported • Established value of co-products as livestock feeds • Cattle feeders wanted price related to price of corn • Early-90’s • Interest in ethanol production from dry-grind plants • Slow to develop in Iowa (Developed in MN, NE, SD) • Established value of co-products as cattle feed • Promoted integration of ethanol plants and cattle feeding • First Iowa dry-grind plants coordinated with cattle production • Late 2004 to present • Rapid expansion of building ethanol plants • Concentration of ownership of ethanol plants • Co-products evolved as commodity feeds

  3. Changes in Agriculture • Animal power to tractors • From growing fuel raised on farm to importing fuel • 2. Crops: Corn-Small grains-Meadow to less crop diversification • Change to corn and soybeans • Use of ag chemicals and external sources of energy • Concentration of livestock into larger units • All farms had livestock to few farms having livestock • 3. Next change: Production of biofuels • Alter expectations of agriculture • Alter cropping systems • Alter investments in agriculture • Role of livestock? • The consequences of this change could be greater than • past changes – Is the livestock sector prepared?

  4. Expectations of U. S. Agriculture • Production of food – Long-term mission • High quality • Safe • Low cost • 2. Production of biofuels – New role • Liquid fuels suitable for internal combustion engines • Corn grain is predominant feedstock used for ethanol • 3. Livestock production • Expectations of society not clear • Small vs. Large – Location • Source of capital • Might begin moving off-shore

  5. Use of Corn (2005-2006)

  6. Ethanol Production in IowaDry-Grind Plants aCould be feedlot (backgrounding, finish), beef cows, dairy cows, replacement females. Based on feeding 40 lbs wet DGS/d.

  7. Influence of Biofuels on Livestock Production • Competition for feedstock (starch & cellulose) • Impact on feed prices • DGS has not helped to solve the problem • Dry DGS is a commodity feed and can be moved • Plants have dryers so wet DGS priced on dry • Low energy value of dry DGS for monogastrics • Develop corn designed for ethanol rather than feed • High starch, lower protein, add amylase • 2. Land values • Cost of land • Availability of land for grazing • 3. Flow of nutrients • Phosphorus (To some extent nitrogen)

  8. Influence of Biofuels on Livestock Production • 4. Effects of feeding DGS on animal health and performance • Availability of amino acids • Availability of energy • Mycotoxins • Antibiotics • Sulfur (ruminants) • High nitrogen intakes • 5. Quality and safety of animal food products • Effects of unsaturated oil • 6. Competition for energy and water • Natural gas – also used by agriculture • 3 to 6 gal water per gal ethanol – livestock • also use high volumes of water

  9. Use of Biomass for Ethanol ProductionImplications for Livestock Industries • 1. No assurance more corn will be available for livestock • Greater cost of producing ethanol from cellulose/hemicellulose • Corn plants have been built – Corn grain will continue to be used to produce ethanol • Federal policy would have to direct change in use • of corn grain • Market forces will not cause a change • 2. Supply of biomass • Corn stover is current primary supply of biomass in Iowa • Compete for a feed supply fed to cattle • Develop perennial crop – Switch grass • Increase competition for use of land available • for grazing or production of grain • 3. No co-product is produced that has feed value for animals • Maybe a protein fraction (Need energy to feed animals)

  10. Possible Consequences of Biofuels • 1. Livestock industries remain a competitor for feedstocks • DGS remain a commodity • Exacerbate the problems of agriculture • October 12, 2007 – A broad coalition of organizations representing • animal agriculture urge congressional leaders to oppose • increasing RFS for grain-based ethanol • 2. Livestock industries coordinate with production of biofuels • and address some of the issues being raised • Food and fuel • Net energy balance of producing biofuels • Sustainability of biofuels production • Economic • Ecologic • Rural economic development

  11. Opportunities • Pricing of DGS for livestock • Establishing a price for livestock not simple • Price relative to corn at a price beneficial to livestock • and ethanol producers • 2. Develop coordinated food and energy systems • Produce food(s) and energy • 3. Improve net energy balance of the coordinated system • 4. Recycle nutrients • Reduce energy inputs for agriculture production • Reduce environmental impact of agriculture • 5. Grow biofuels and livestock industries in Iowa

  12. Integrated Livestock and Ethanol ProductionIowa • Feed wet DGS • Save energy for drying DGS • Recycle water as wet DGS • Benefits of Manure as Fertilizer • Stop importing P & K • Reduce N imported • Benefits of anaerobic digester • Reduce use of natural gas • Conserve manure nutrients • Limitations • Majority of feedlots not • designed for this system • Requires extensive • coordination • Anaerobic digesters not well • developed Corn Ethanol Fuel DGS Feedlot Food CH4 Identified markets Fertilizer Branded products Manure Anaerobic Digester Future: Use CO2 from ethanol & digester Grow algae Synthetic genomics – synthetic cells

  13. Beef Herd to Support Feedlots1000 Head Feedlot Turned 2 x per Year aCorrected for water intake from pasture.

  14. Feeding Wet DGS Recycles WaterWet DGS (32% DM) • Growing cattle fed 70% DGS, Feedlot cattle fed 50% Cows fed 50%, Replacement heifers fed 60% • 1000 head feedlot (turned 2x per year) 10.78 mil lbs DGS DM fed per year 3.8% of output of 50 mgy ethanol plant • Wet DGS would replace 2.75 mil gal water/yr 15.9% of water requirement of cattle • Water use • 50 mgy ethanol plant - 200 to 250 mgy water • 26.5 beef units to use DGS from 50 mgy plant - 460 mgy • Feed wet DGS: Recycle 29 to 36% of water • used by ethanol plant

  15. Integrating Cattle and Ethanol Improves Net Energy Biofuel energy/Petroleum energy Based on EBAMM model University of California-Berkeley Benefits • Reduce use of commercial nitrogen fertilizer • Greater value of DGS • Reduce use of natural gas • Feed wet DGS • Dependent on feeding high levels of wet DGS to cattle • How much can be fed? + Cattle + Cattle + Digester

  16. Effects of Feeding Wet Distillers Grains on Carcass Measurements – Steers and HeifersFour Experiments Medium = 20 or 28%, high = 40% wet DGS AOV: ADG P < 0.04, Dress % (P < 0.05) Bonferroni t-test: No significance

  17. Steers Fed Modified Wet Distillers Grains(52% DM) Cattle: 690 lb steers fed 186 days, implanted 2 x. Carcass value based on premiums and discounts. DGS 52% DM.

  18. Net Income Steers Fed Modified Wet DGS Net income from feeding 690 lb steers a corn-based diet or modified DGS. Net income based on carcass value and related to price of corn and DGS (as % of corn price).

  19. Steers and Heifers Fed Modified Wet DGS(52% DM) aFed 120 days bFed 169 days. Control diet 86% corn and supplement, 10% corn silage, 4% tub-ground grass hay. One combination implant in the cattle on day 1. DGS 52% DM.

  20. Steers and Heifers Fed Modified Wet DGS Carcass value based on premiums and discounts.

  21. Net Income Heifers Fed Modified Wet DGS Net income from feeding 725 lb heifers a corn-based diet or modified DGS. Net income based on carcass value and related to price of corn and DGS (as % of corn price).

  22. Net Income Steers Fed Modified Wet DGS Net income from feeding 830 lb steers fed a corn-based diet or modified DGS. Net income based on carcass value and related to price of corn and DGS (as % of corn price).

  23. Steers and Heifers Fed Wet DGS (32% DM)2007 Experiment (Preliminary data at 84 days) Control diet 86% corn and supplement, 10% corn silage, 4% tub ground grass hay. One combination implant in the cattle on day 1.

  24. Conclusions • High levels of wet DGS can be fed to cattle • Up to 60% of dry matter intake • Satisfactory performance of the cattle can be maintained • Effects on carcass quality can be managed • Feeding high levels of DGS seems to decrease marbling to some extent • Wet DGS can be priced relative to corn grain • Price should be less than corn grain on a dry basis • Provide economic incentive to cattle producers • Need to allow economic return to ethanol plant for co-product

  25. Implications • Integrating livestock with production of biofuels addresses many of the concerns being expressed • Energy obtained from petroleum energy invested • Food: production/price • Sustainability: environmental/economic • Rural development • Water conservation

More Related