Ethanol Co-Product Utilization and its impact on the environment -beef cattle Rick Koelsch & Galen Erickson

Nebraska CNMP Program 2 Manure P vs. Crop Land P Use < 25% % % >100%

Nebraska CNMP Program 3 One-Way Flow of Nutrients Is Underlying Cause < 25% % % >100%

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.

Ethanol Plants & Fed Cattle Population

DRY MILLING-WDG(+S) GRAIN GRIND, WET, COOK FERMENTATION YEAST, ENZYMES STILLALCOHOL & CO 2 STILLAGE DISTILLERS GRAINS WDG, DDG DISTILLERS SOLUBLES WDGS DDGS Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE

Performance for DGS Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep. and 2005 Midwest ASAS

Economics for WDGS Corn at $3.50/bu; WDGS at 95% of corn price; miles are distance from ethanol plant to feedlot -$143.19

Beef Extension Page Beef Reports

Intake Excretion Intake-Retention=Excretion Excretion in feces & urine Retained nutrients 10-15%

Excretion numbers using ASABE std approach AVGMINMAX Diet P, % * P Excretion7.0 lb4.6 lb 14.1 lb “old” std13.9 lb Diet CP, % * N Excretion64 lb57 lb 104 lb 150 days fed for an "average" steer Impact of DGS on excretion

P<0.01 P=0.07 Impact of DGS on N challenge N mass balance

NRC Dietary P in Feedlot Diets Impact of DGS on P challenge

NRC Our data Impact of DGS on P challenge Dietary P in Feedlot Diets

Relationship between P intake and manure harvested P (kg/hd/d) for cattle lots. Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report Dietary P effect on manure Impact of DGS on P challenge

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)

(1) N (#/yr)1,095,000 P (#/yr)134,000 Acres5,800 Time (hr)910 Haul (mi)2.0 Value$108,000 Cost $52, Base Scenario (Corn Diet)

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

2. 40% WDGS Scenario (1)(2) N (#/yr)219,000331,000 P (#/yr)127,000243,000 Acres5,80011,100 Time (hr)910 1,000 – 1,300 Haul (mi) 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?

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)

Feedlot size (hd): ,00025,000 0 byp 0.30 P1,3205,30013, byp 0.40 P1,9007,60019, byp 0.50 P2,50010,00025,000 Assumes: 50% of land area accessible 185 bu corn, corn-soybean rotation, ~35 lb P per acre (80 lb P 2 O 5 ) Land Requirements, 4yr P basis (acres) Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report Impact of DGS on P challenge

Manure P vs Fertilizer P 79% of corn acres fertilized in 2003 average = 35 lb/ac 8.1 million acres planted (141,750 tons P 2 O 5 ) (54,871 tons P at 79% acres) 4.5 million feedlot cattle Excrete 12 lb = 54 mil. Lb. (27,000 tons)

Nebraska CNMP Program 24 Whole Farm P Balance No DG Inclusion 40% DG Inclusion

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

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

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

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.