460 likes | 638 Views
Synergy between cattle, corn, and ethanol for Nebraska: Use of byproducts by cattle G. Erickson & T. Klopfenstein. Beef Extension Page http://beef.unl.edu. Beef Reports. DRY MILLING-WDG(+S). CORN. GRIND, WET, COOK. Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE. FERMENTATION. YEAST, ENZYMES. STILL.
E N D
Synergy between cattle, corn, and ethanol for Nebraska: Use of byproducts by cattle G. Erickson & T. Klopfenstein
Beef Extension Page http://beef.unl.edu Beef Reports
DRY MILLING-WDG(+S) CORN GRIND, WET, COOK Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE FERMENTATION YEAST, ENZYMES STILL ALCOHOL & CO2 STILLAGE DISTILLERS GRAINS WDG, DDG DISTILLERS SOLUBLES WDGS DDGS
WET MILLING-CGF Cargill wet milling, Blair, NE STEEP CORN GRIND WASH WATER SEPARATION STARCH, SWEETENER, ALCOHOL GLUTEN MEAL CORN OIL STEEP CORN BRAN SEM, screenings, dist solubles WET CORN GLUTEN FEED DRY CORN GLUTEN FEED
WDGS, modified (45% DM) • WDGS, traditional (35% DM) • DDGS (25% solubles) • Syrup, distillers solubles, CCDS • WCGF (45% DM) • WCGF-Sweet Bran (60% DM) • DCGF • Steep • “new” distillers grains Byproducts
Use • Inclusion < 15% (2-3 lb): protein • Inclusion > 15% (4+ lb): energy
Traditional WDGS Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep; 2005 Midwest American Society of Animal Science
Traditional WDGS - $ Distance from ethanol plant to feedlot Buckner et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
Dry DGS Buckner et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep; 2007 Midwest American Society of Animal Science
Dry DGS - $ Buckner et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
Modified WDGS Huls et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
Modified WDGS - $ Huls et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
WDGS & Grain Processing Corrigan et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep.
WDGS & Grain Processing Corrigan et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep.
UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS Effect on Carcass Characteristics Virgil Bremer, Galen Erickson&Terry Klopfenstein
Average Daily Gain ADG (lb) Diet DM % WDGS Intercept cov. P = 0.03 L P < 0.01 ≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P < 0.01
Feed Conversion F:G (lb/lb) Diet DM % WDGS Intercept cov. P = 0.04 L P < 0.01 ≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.09
Marbling Score Marbling Score 500 = Small0 Diet DM % WDGS Intercept Slope cov. P = 0.08 cov. P = 0.09 L P = 0.05 ≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.05
UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF Effect on Carcass Characteristics Virgil Bremer, Galen Erickson&Terry Klopfenstein
Average Daily Gain ADG (lb) Diet DM % WCGF Intercept cov. P = 0.05 L P < 0.01 ≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.67
Feed Conversion F:G (lb/lb) Diet DM % WCGF Intercept cov. P = 0.05 L P = 0.03 ≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.48
Feedlot Diets Issues • Fat (oil) • Sulfur • Phosphorus • Feed with DRC or HMC • Feed wet locally Nebraska opportunity Nebraska opportunity Nebraska opportunity
How do we use more? Fat limits WDGS to 40% Sulfur is a concern Feed combination of byproducts Feed "new" distillers products
WCGF/WDGS combination (%DM) BP (50:50 Blend) Loza et al., 2003
WCGF/WDGS combination ADG BP Loza et al., 2003
WCGF/WDGS combination Feed Conversion Q = <0.05 L = 0.32 BP (%DM) Loza et al., 2003
New Economic Models for Performance Crystal Buckner, Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein, Darrell Mark
Economics for WDGS $19.28 Corn at $3.70/bu; WDGS at 95% of corn price; Lines are distance (miles) from ethanol plant to feedlot
Impact of DGS on P challenge Land Requirements, 4yr P basis (acres) Feedlot size (hd): 2500 0 byp 0.30 P 1,320 20 byp 0.40 P 1,900 40 byp 0.50 P 2,500 Assumes: 50% of land area accessible 185 bu corn, corn-soybean rotation, ~35 lb P per acre (80 lb P2O5) Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report
Costs and Net Value, C-SB rotation4-Yr P Basis, ($/hd) 2500 COSTS 0 byp 0.30 P 3.00 20 byp 0.40 P 3.50 40 byp 0.50 P 3.90 NET VALUE 0 byp 0.30 P 2.50 20 byp 0.40 P 4.30 40 byp 0.50 P 6.10 Kissinger et al., 2006
WDGS in combination with other ingredients when stored in a silo bag or bunker silo Baga Bunker Grass hay, % 15.0 (6.5) 30-40 (17.0) Wheat straw, % 12.5 (5.5) 25-32 (13) Alfalfa hay, % 22.5 (10.2) 45-55 Dry distillers grains,% 50 (28) --- Corn gluten feed, % 60 (53.8) --- a300 PSI. Wet distillers grains at 35% dry matter 65% moisture Red percentages are “as-fed” basisAdams et al. University of Nebraska
S in WDGS Plant: A B C D E F S 0.71 0.72 0.83 1.06 0.81 0.90 Max 1.72 0.84 0.93 1.26 0.93 1.04 S 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.69 0.76 0.82 Max 0.95 0.82 0.80 0.83 0.82 0.89
Treatments TRT: CON 2X Fe 3X Fe 4x Fe H2S 38.9 31.6 28.9 16.2
Issues • Byproducts will be here • Improve performance • Not negative on quality (related to • performance) • Don't forget about WCGF • Dry byproducts are different • Distillers grains will not be created equal • Energy content better than corn • Should be economical! PRICE DM!
Nebraska Advantages • Can feed wet byproducts • Fits with “Nebraska” diets • dry-rolled corn, high-moisture corn • Manage the P here • Can feed even higher levels • WCGF and WDGS combination
CONTACT: Galen Erickson; PH: 402 472-6402; gerickson4@unl.eduAcknowledge: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research / NPPD Nebraska Corn Board Poet Nutrition Abengoa Bioenergy Chief Ethanol Cargill Wet Milling Nebraska Beef Council UNL Foundation GARD US BioEnergy