Upload
nigel-kelley
View
232
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Biofuel – Fact or Farce
HINNER KÖSTER (Ph.D.)
• Fiber to cellulosic ethanol??
Cellulosic Conversion ??
More worries about food versus fuel
“Boosting U.S. ethanol production would mean higher food prices, both domestically and across the globe”
Dick Bond, Tyson CEO
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Year
Eth
an
ol,
bil
lio
n g
all
on
sUSA Ethanol outlook
(25% in 2007/08)
(Reach level in 2009/10)
New projections – baseline increase
CBOT MARCH MAIZE PRICE
USA DDGS Production Outlook
U.S. DDGS Production from Ethanol?
14
9.0
3.531.8
0.320.9
0
5
10
15
20
25
(MM
T)
USA potential DDGS exports
1.51.9
2.32.9
3.7
4.6
5.7
7.2
8.9
11.2
1.2
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Year
MM
T
Source: The ProExporter Network®
Relationship between US Maize and DDGS pricesSource: CARD, Iowa State University
DDGS Usage ─ All used by livestock (nothing wasted) Swine ─ 8.7 million tons
Poultry ─ 6.9 million tons
Dairy ─ 16 million tons
Beef ─ 39 million tons
Total ─ 70.6 million tons
“Biofuels provide us with a historic chance to fast-forward growth in many of the world’s poorest countries, to bring about an agricultural renaissance and to supply modern energy to a third of the world’s population”
Jacques Diouf, Director General: UN Food and Agricultural Organisation
BIOFUELS SA
BIOFUELS SA
• LEGISLATION IS THE KEY TO BIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN SOUTH AFRICA
• NO LIKELY DIRECTION IN THE SHORT TERM• COMPETITION WITH FOOD?• ECONOMIC VIABILITY?• HEALTH/ENVIRONMENTAL/ECOLOGICAL
AFFECT?• JOB CREATION, SMALL SCALE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT, 2ND ECONOMY, POVERTY ALLEVIATION?
• CONTRIBUTING TO NATIONAL FUEL SECURITY?– PRICE, VOLUMES
Maize-to-Ethanol: Total Supply Chain Cost Comparison (Source: Absa Agribusiness / Agrista)
R 520,000,000
R 540,000,000
R 560,000,000
R 580,000,000
R 600,000,000
R 620,000,000
R 640,000,000
R 660,000,000
R 680,000,000
Bergville Bethlehem Bothaville Ermelo Sasolburg Secunda
Location
Total Supply Chain Cost Comparison
Total Maize Procurement Cost Total Ethanol Transport Cost Total DDGS Transport Cost
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7
YEAR
YELLOW WHITE
SOUTH AFRICAN MAIZE CONSUMPTION
Impact of Maize Price on Planting BehaviourSource: Safex, Crop Estimates Committee
Maize Price and Ha
-
500,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
3,500,000.00
4,000,000.00
1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007
Year
Ha
-
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1,000.00
1,200.00
1,400.00
1,600.00
1,800.00
Pri
ce
Maize ha Maize price
GRAIN PRICES / GRAANPRYSE
50100150200250300350400450500
2006
/01/
0320
06/0
2/06
2006
/03/
1320
06/0
4/17
2006
/05/
1920
06/0
6/22
2006
/07/
2620
06/0
8/29
2006
/10/
0220
06/1
1/03
2006
/12/
0720
07/0
1/12
2007
/02/
1520
07/0
3/21
2007
/04/
2520
07/0
5/29
2007
/07/
0220
07/0
8/03
2007
/09/
0620
07/1
0/10
2007
/11/
1320
08/0
1/02
2008
/02/
0520
08/0
3/31
2008
/07/
3120
08/0
9/31
$/t
USA Yellow Maize / VSA GeelmieliesUS HRW Wheat / VSA HRW Koring
A - Actual prices / Werklike pryseB - Futures prices/Termynpryse
A B
MAIZE / MIELIES
400
900
1400
1900
2400
2900
2000
/01/
04
2001
/01/
04
2002
/01/
04
2003
/01/
04
2004
/01/
04
2005
/01/
04
2006
/01/
04
2007
/01/
04
2008
/01/
04
R/t
on
Import parity prices / InvoerpariteitspryseExport parity prices / Uitvoerpariteitspryse
WORLD MAIZE POSITION WêRELD MIELIE POSISIE
600620640660680700720740760780800
2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08
Mil
Ton
Maize production / Mielie produksie
Maize consumption / Mielie v erbruik
Source/Bron: USDA
US No3Y MAIZE PRICE /
VSA No3Y MIELIEPRYS
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
320006
-Nov
-97
01-N
ov-9
8
05-N
ov-9
9
03-N
ov-0
0
05-O
ct-0
1
04-O
ct-0
2
07-N
ov-0
3
05-N
ov-0
4
04-N
ov-0
5
03-N
ov-0
6
15-J
un-0
7
07-S
ep-0
7
30-N
ov-0
7
R/t
Against the actual exchange rate/ Teenoor die werklike wisselkoers
Against a fixed exchange rate of R4.82 as on 06/11/97 / Teenoor 'n vasgestelde wisselkoers van R4.82 soos op 06/11/97.
YELLOW MAIZE PRICES RANDFONTEINPRYSE VAN GEELMIELIES GELEWER IN RANDFONTEIN
PRICES OF YELLOW MAIZE DELIVERED IN RANDFONTEINMei/May 2005 - Februarie/February 2008
300.00
500.00
700.00
900.00
1,100.00
1,300.00
1,500.00
1,700.00
1,900.00
2,100.00
2,300.00
2,500.00
2,700.00
2-M
ay-0
52-
Jun-
052-
Jul-0
52-
Aug-
052-
Sep-
052-
Oct
-05
2-No
v-05
2-De
c-05
2-Ja
n-06
2-Fe
b-06
2-M
ar-0
62-
Apr-0
62-
May
-06
2-Ju
n-06
2-Ju
l-06
2-Au
g-06
2-Se
p-06
2-O
ct-0
62-
Nov-
062-
Dec-
062-
Jan-
072-
Feb-
072-
Mar
-07
2-Ap
r-07
2-M
ay-0
72-
Jun-
072-
Jul-0
72-
Aug-
072-
Sep-
072-
Oct
-07
2-No
v-07
2-De
c-07
2-Ja
n-08
2-Fe
b-08
Datum/Date
R/to
n
Invoerpariteit ARG YM
Invoerpariteit VSA YM
SAFEX YM
Uitvoerpariteit VSA YM
01/05/05 - 30/04/06 01/05/06 - 30/04/07
Source: Grain SA
1. DOMESTIC PRICES PER SAFEX (R/t) (a)
1. PLAASLIKE PRYSE VOLGENS SAFEX (R/t) (a)
Futures prices/Termynpryse (2008/02/15)
Commodity 2008/03 2008/05 2008/07 2008/09 2008/12
White maize R1736.00/t R1655.00/t R1598.00/t R1630.00/t R1679.00/t
Yellow maize R1803.00/t R1706.00/t R1673.00/t R1717.00/t R1728.00/t
Ethanol to DDGS
Starch 72.6 % Maize Oil 4.3 % Protein 9.8 % NDF 9.0 % Minerals 1.6 %
Nutritional Components of Yellow Maize (DM base)
Average Yield of Maize in Dry-Milling Ethanol Production
• Ethanol (40%)• DDGS (30%)• CO2 (30%)
Ethanol Production(Fermentation process)
Slurry Mash"cooking"
GrindingLiquefaction
TanksFermentation
Ethanol
Distillation
Beer Well
Dryer DrumDDGS
SyrupEvaporator Centrifuge
Wet Cake
H2O
Alpha-amylase
SteamGluco-amylase
CO2
WDG
CDS
• Low in starch
• Moderate in fat
• Moderate in protein
• High in fiber
• High in phosphorous
Nutritional Characteristics of Distillers Grains
Maize 85-908-10 7-10 3.5-4.0DDGS 85-90 28-35 35-43 10-12WDGS 30-35 28-35 35-43 10-12ModDG 42-50 28-35 35-43 10-12CDS 25-35 20-25 >5 20-25
Fat level variable: 8-14%• dependent on solubles amountS level important to watchP in DGS: 0.75-1.0% P
DM CP NDF Fat
Byproduct composition (%DM)
Problem 1Lysine and Methionine content of DGS
vs other protein ingredients
Problem 2 – Nutrient Variation-Statistics for range of DDGS samples
analysed by NIR-
Parameter Range Samples R2 SECVMoisture 2.8 – 16.9 303 0.981 0.57
Protein 23.4 – 38.5 311 0.987 0.53
Fat 6.6 – 12.6 124 0.913 0.40
Ash 3.0 – 6.7 126 0.828 0.39
ADF 9.9 – 13.9 34 N/A 0.65
NDF 28.3 – 32.3 34 N/A 0.81
Crude Fiber 5.4 – 8.2 34 N/A 0.54
Starch 6.5 – 9.5 104 0.653 0.46
Comparison of the Nutrient Content of Maize Distiller’s Grains and Maize Condensed
Distiller’s Solubles
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Grains Solubles
DM, %CP, %Fat, %CF, %Ash, %Ca, %P, %
Nutrient composition and protein digestibility of DDGS based on solubles level
Solubles levela, % of DDGS mix (DM)
Item 0 5.4 14.5 19.1 22.1DM, % 95.5 92.1 90.8 89.3 89.6CP, % 32.1 31.9 31.5 30.7 30.9Fat, % 6.9 8.9 10.4 12.7 13.3NDF, % 36.8 34.9 31.9 30.3 29.3CP Digestibilityb 97.2 97.4 97.9 97.9 97.9a Solubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0%
solubles DDGb In situ total-tract protein digestibility
Nutrient Composition of DDGS8 Ethanol plants sampled (5MN, 2SD, 1NE)
Item NRC Mean Range
Crude Prot. % 27 - 33 30.1 26 - 36
EE % 7 – 13 10.5 4 - 19
NDF % 31 – 47 48.8 39 – 62
S.R. Harty, J-M Akayezu, J>G> Linn and J.M. Cassady 1998
Which DDGS has the best Quality?
Not all DDGS are created equal
A B C
NutritionColor
Particle size Flowability
DDGS Varies in Nutrient Content and Digestibility, Color, and Particle Size Among USA Sources
Protein Characteristics of DDGS8 Ethanol plants sampled (5 MN, 2 SD, 1 NE)
Item NRC Mean RangeCrude Prot. % 27 – 33 30.1 26 – 36 --------% of CP-------Soluble CP ---- 9.7 1 – 22 ADICP 10 – 23 8.0 1 – 19 RUP 42 – 51 53.4 41 – 68 -------% of RUP-------RUP Dig. 80 82.2 72 – 94
S.R. Harty, J-M Akayezn, J.G. Linn and J.M. Cassady, 1998
Total and digestible Lysine composition (%) and the color of 8 DDGS samples (as-fed basis) (JAPR: Research report)
Color1 Digestible Lys
Sample L* b* a* (%)
1 62.9 28.4 7.6 0.66 2 61.5 26.6 6.1 0.643 57.4 21.3 5.8 0.614 57.5 20.5 6.9 0.595 51.2 13.9 5.7 0.526 49.5 11.2 4.1 0.477 48.0 8.82 4.3 0.378 47.9 9.3 4.4 0.18
Color [lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*)] measured with Minolta Chroma Meter CR-300
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
Wheat Bran = R1500/tonDDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
Wheat Bran = R1500/tonDDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
Wheat Bran = R1500/tonDDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
Wheat Bran = R1500/tonDDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
DDGS LOWDDGS AVEDDGS HIGH
3017 9
454239
357
ADIN NDF Starch %CP %DM %DM
Wheat Bran = R1500/tonDDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
DGS in Feedlots
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGYSelf sustaining closed loop system – environmentally friendly
Waste Management
Ethanol and DGS Production
Beef and Manure production
DGS use in feedlots
• Inclusion < 15% (0.9-1.4 kg): protein
• Inclusion > 15% (1.8+ kg): energy
Studies Used - WDGS
Experiment Year Diet DM % WDGS Hd/TxSindt et al. 1990 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Larson et al. 1991 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Ham et al. 1992 0, 40 32Fanning et al. 1997 0, 30 20Vander Pol et al. 2002 0, 20, 40 10Vander Pol et al. 2004 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 48Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50Corrigan et al. 2005 0, 15, 27.5, 40 40Luebbe et al. 2005 0, 15, 30 32
Linear P < 0.01
Average Daily Gain
y = -0.0005x2 + 0.0279x + 3.4669
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
AD
G, l
b
Quadratic P < 0.01% WDGS (DM basis)
WDGS Level ADG (lb)0 3.4710 3.7020 3.8330 3.8740 3.8150 3.66
Predicted Values
Feed Conversion
y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0309x + 6.4367
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
F:G
WDGS Level F:G 0 6.4410 6.1620 5.9530 5.8140 5.7450 5.73
Predicted Values
Linear P < 0.01Quadratic P = 0.09
% WDGS (DM basis)
Feeding Value of WDGS
y = -0.49x + 150.9
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fee
din
g V
alu
e (%
of
mai
ze)
WDGS Level FV % Corn
10 14520 14230 13740 13150 126
Predicted Values
% WDGS (DM basis)
Studies Used - DDGS
Experiment Year Diet DM % DDGS Hd/Tx
Benson et al. 2005 0, 15, 25, 35 48
Bremer et al. 2005 0, 30 60
Buckner et al. 2007 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 40
Ham et al. 1994 0, 40 32
May et al. 2007 0, 25 96
Linear P < 0.01
Average Daily Gain
y = -0.00048x2 + 0.02466x + 3.4325
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
AD
G, l
b
Quadratic P < 0.01% DDGS (DM basis)
DDGS Level ADG (lb)0 3.4310 3.6320 3.7330 3.7440 3.65
Predicted Values
Cubic P = 0.54
Feed Conversion
y = 0.000521x2 - 0.0259x + 6.6201
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50
F:G
DDGS Level F:G 0 6.6210 6.4120 6.3130 6.3140 6.42
Predicted Values
Linear P = 0.07Quadratic P = 0.02
% DDGS (DM basis)Cubic P = 0.97
Feeding Value of DDGS
y = 0.0575x2 - 4.625x + 193.258090
100110120130140150160
0 10 20 30 40 50
Fee
din
g V
alu
e (%
of
mai
ze)
DDGS Level FV % Corn
10 15320 12330 10740 100
Predicted Values
% DDGS (DM basis)
Relationship between US Maize and DDGS pricesSource: CARD, Iowa State University
Feeding value of wet vs. dry distillers grains (Ham et al., 1995)
WDGS DDGS
Control Lowa Mediuma Higha
Daily feed, kg 11.0bc 10.7b 11.5c 11.3cd 11.8d
Daily gain, kg 1.47b 1.68c 1.66c 1.68c 1.71c
Feed/gain 7.69b 6.33c 6.94d 6.76d 6.90d
Improvement (vs Control), %
Diet -- 21.5 ………….11.9 (avg.)………..
Distillers vs. Maize -- 53.8 ………….29.8………………
aLevel of ADIN, 9.7, 17.5 and 28.8%.b,c,d Means in same row with different superscripts differ (P<0.05)
Wet Byproducts for Cattle Cost of transporting water
Superior Feeding ValueDry Byproducts for Cattle Storage
Transport over long distance
In Summary…
• Ethanol industry has major influence on overall global agricultural economy
• USA exports of DDGS are rapidly increasing as end users better understand the use of DDGS in their feeding operations
• Ethanol production process is not an exact science, there will be variability
• Variability can (should) be managed and evaluated• Quality control measures can be implemented to ensure a reliable
supply of quality DDGS• Need industry standardized and quick testing of DDGS• Match your needs with DDGS quality
In Summary…• DGS low in starch
– Reduces potential of acidosis
• Highly digestible fibre (40-45% NDF) and yeast cells (3-5%)– Stimulate rumen fibre digestion– Compliment high starch maize diets
• When fed at limited levels (<40%)– Energy content 120-130% of maize
• Reasonable source of undegradable protein (UDP) source – UDP quality and bioavailability could be a problem
• Feedlot cattle find DDGS very palatable
Thank You