HANDLING AND STORAGE OF HIGH MOISTURE CO-PRODUCTS FROM ETHANOL PRODUCTION IN BEEF OPERATIONS Ashley Nelson, Joel Baskett, Kelsey Vincent Agricultural Systems Technology Seniors Dan Loy, Daryl Strohbehn Animal Science Department Carl Bern, Tom Brumm Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Deoartmnent Iowa State University

Introduction  Background  Objective  Procedure  Results & Discussion  Recommendations  Acknowledgements  Sources  Questions

Background Ethanol Production  Alcohol produced from starch or sugar-based feedstocks  Common feedstock sources in the Midwest  corn  barley  wheat  milo  Projected12-13 billion gallons of ethanol in 2009  Two common methods  Dry mill production  Wet mill production

Background Ethanol Co-Products  Dry milling  distillers grains  distillers solubles  carbon dioxide  Wet Milling  corn gluten meal  corn gluten feed  corn germ meal  corn oil  carbon dioxide  high fructose corn syrups Corn Gluten Meal Distillers Grain Strohbehn Corn Oil

Background Distillers Grains  Three types  Dry distillers grains (DDG) ~10% moisture content  Wet distillers grains (WDG) ~65% moisture content  Distillers grains with solubles (DDGS/WDGS) ~48-52% moisture content DDG Strohbehn WDG DDGS/WDGS

Background Storage of High Moisture Co-Products  Containment of co-products until final use  Common storage and preservation practices  Additives Mixing with feedstuff Chemical preservation  Fresh piles Covered Uncovered Bunk-contained  Silage bags Strohbehn

Background Handling of High Moisture Co-Products  Processing and delivery from storage site to animal feed site  Common handling equipment  Loader  Mixer/feeder

Objective  Determine and understand practices and procedures users are employing in storage and handling of high moisture co-products  Identify problems users have with the practices and procedures  Discover areas for equipment and practice improvements

Procedure  Collaborate with Iowa Beef Center (IBC) to define need in research area  Surveys on understanding of topic from  Beef Producer’s operation  Veterinarian and Feed Specialists (client’s operation)  Compiled data into Excel spreadsheets  Statistical analysis of data  Wrote publication for IBC

Procedure  The surveys  Collaborated with IBC  Funded by Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture grant  Two separate surveys Common practices by users Known problems associated with high moisture products Determine research areas  Total scope included 2,309 subjects from all over Iowa 2,145 Beef Producers 337 were completed & returned 11% return rate 164 Veterinarians & Feed Specialists 49 were completed & returned 30% return rate

Results & Discussion  45% use high moisture co-products  44% do not feed them  11% used them, but have discontinued  94% of clients use high moisture co-products  Remaining clients have used them, but discontinued Storage problems Inconsistency in product quality Beef Producer Study ResultsVeterinarian & Feed Specialist Study Results

Results & Discussion Beef Producer Study ResultsVeterinarian & Feed Specialist Study Results 59% of producers are willing to pay $5 or less per ton for extended shelf life This differs from Beef Producers, as 64% say they combine it with unspoiled product, and 28% separate & discard it.

Results & Discussion  Top practices willing to try to extend shelf life  Preservatives (chemical & biological)  Temporary storage (silage bags/plastic cover)  Top practices willing to recommend to extend shelf life  Temporary storage (silage bags/plastic cover)  Permanent storage surface (concrete slab) Beef Producer Study ResultsVeterinarian & Feed Specialist Study Results

Results & Discussion  Co-products are fed to grazing cattle by 76% of clients  Primary reasons include Enhance nutrition Increase carrying capacities Veterinarian & Feed Specialist Study Results

Results & Discussion Beef Producer Study ResultsVeterinarian & Feed Specialist Study Results

Results & Discussion Beef Producer Study ResultsVeterinarian & Feed Specialist Study Results

Results & Discussion  Challenges adjusted by Producers feeding co-products  Order of ingredients (84%)  Mixing time (47%)  Type of equipment (20%) Beef Producer Study Results

Results & Discussion Beef Producer Study ResultsVeterinarian & Feed Specialist Study Results

Results & Discussion  Agreement between groups  Acceptable amount of spoilage of 1-10%  Moisture variation Load-by-load, plant differences Causes problems with transportation, storage, & handling  Metering problems when trying to handle and transport co-products

Recommendations  Suggested areas of design for easier delivery include:  Systems for smaller feeders in cow/calf operations to utilize both WDGS and Syrup more effectively  Better flowability of co-product  Justifiable cost of equipment  Liquid tank designed to unload with air pressure

Recommendations  Implementing a grading system  Specifications for sulfur, particle size, moisture content, fat & protein levels,  Uniform classes of co-products  Marketable and less variable  Standard for spoilage  Determine acceptable amount of spoiled co-product can be feed to livestock

Further Information Iowa State University Animal Industry Report 2009  Animal Science Leaflet R2417 Storage and Handling of High Moisture Co-Products from Ethanol Production in Beef Operations: Feed Specialist and Veterinarian Study  Animal Science Leaflet R2416 Storage and Handling of High Moisture Co-Products from Ethanol Production in Beef Operations: Beef Producer Study

Acknowledgements  Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, funding  IBC Extension Field Livestock Specialists, survey mailing list  Charles Schwab, ABE professor  Matt & Julie Johnson, Bre McCubbin, Alaina Holdgrafer, Dana North, and Benaiah Anabaraonye, collating assistance  Julie Roberts and Trina Zimmer, IBC secretaries

Sources  Bampidis, V.A. and Robinson, P.H Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 128(3- 4):  EIA Energy kid’s page-ethanol timeline. Energy Information Administration. March 9,  EPIC Producing ethanol. Ethanol Promotion and Information Council. March 9,  Garcia, A.D., K.F. Kalscheur, and D.J. Schingoethe Distillers grains for dairy cattle. March 11,  Garcia, A.D. and K.F. Kalscheur Ensiling wet distillers grains with other feeds. March 10,  Garrelts, Matt Personal communication. March 25,  GWG Wood Group Picture of walking floor trailer. October 6,  Ives, Randy Distillers grains present and future. UBE Ingredients. March 9,  Lardy, Dr. Greg Feeding coproducts of the ethanol industry to beef cattle. North Dakota State University Extension Service. March 9,  Loy, Daniel and Miller, Wendy Ethanol coproducts for cattle: wet distillers feeds for feedlot cattle. Iowa State University Extension. March 9,  McGinnis, Laura Fueling America-without petroleum. March9,  Mn-TAP Livestock producers accepting food by-products. Minnesota Technical Assistance Program. March 11,  RFA How ethanol is made. Renewable Fuels Association. March 9,  Shaw, Ronald Personal communication. March 12, 2008.

Questions