Transcript swael

Biofuel – Fact or Farce
HINNER KÖSTER (Ph.D.)
Cellulosic Conversion ??
• Fiber to cellulosic ethanol??
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
Year
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
Ethanol, billion gallons
14
USA Ethanol outlook
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
(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
?
25
20
14
9.0
10
5
3.5
3
1.8
0.9
0.32
10
20
06
20
05
20
00
20
95
19
90
19
85
19
80
0
19
(MMT)
15
USA potential DDGS exports
12.0
11.2
10.0
8.9
7.2
5.7
6.0
4.6
3.7
4.0
2.0
2.9
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.3
Source: The ProExporter Network®
Year
20
15
20
14
20
13
20
12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
0.0
20
05
MMT
8.0
Relationship between US Maize and DDGS prices
Source: 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 SA
“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
• 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)
Total Supply Chain Cost Comparison
R 680,000,000
R 660,000,000
R 640,000,000
R 620,000,000
R 600,000,000
R 580,000,000
R 560,000,000
R 540,000,000
R 520,000,000
Bergville
Bethlehem
Bothaville
Ermelo
Sasolburg
Location
Total Maize Procurement Cost
Total Ethanol Transport Cost
Total DDGS Transport Cost
Secunda
SOUTH AFRICAN MAIZE CONSUMPTION
Impact of Maize Price on Planting Behaviour
Source: Safex, Crop Estimates Committee
Maize Price and Ha
4,000,000.00
1,800.00
3,500,000.00
1,600.00
1,400.00
3,000,000.00
1,200.00
2,500,000.00
Price
Ha
1,000.00
2,000,000.00
800.00
1,500,000.00
600.00
1,000,000.00
400.00
500,000.00
200.00
-
1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004
Year
Maize ha
Maize price
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
2006/01/03
2006/02/06
2006/03/13
2006/04/17
2006/05/19
2006/06/22
2006/07/26
2006/08/29
2006/10/02
2006/11/03
2006/12/07
2007/01/12
2007/02/15
2007/03/21
2007/04/25
2007/05/29
2007/07/02
2007/08/03
2007/09/06
2007/10/10
2007/11/13
2008/01/02
2008/02/05
2008/03/31
2008/07/31
2008/09/31
$/t
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
GRAIN PRICES / GRAANPRYSE
A - A ctual prices / Werklike pryse
B - Futures prices/Termynpryse
A
USA Yellow Maize / VSA Geelmielies
US HRW Wheat / VSA HRW Koring
B
MAIZE / MIELIES
2900
1900
1400
900
Import parity prices / Invoerpariteitspryse
Export parity prices / Uitvoerpariteitspryse
2008/01/04
2007/01/04
2006/01/04
2005/01/04
2004/01/04
2003/01/04
2002/01/04
2001/01/04
400
2000/01/04
R/ton
2400
Mil Ton
WORLD MAIZE POSITION
WêRELD MIELIE POSISIE
800
780
760
740
720
700
680
660
640
620
600
Source/Bron: USDA
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Maize production / Mielie produksie
Maize consumption / Mielie v erbruik
2007/08
US No3Y MAIZE PRICE /
VSA No3Y MIELIEPRYS
R/t
3200
A gainst the actual exchange rate/
Teeno o r die werklike wisselko ers
2800
2400
2000
A gainst a fixed exchange
rate o f R4.82 as o n 06/11/97 /
Teeno o r 'n vasgestelde
wisselko ers van R4.82
so o s o p 06/11/97.
1600
1200
800
30-Nov-07
07-Sep-07
15-Jun-07
03-Nov-06
04-Nov-05
05-Nov-04
07-Nov-03
04-Oct-02
05-Oct-01
03-Nov-00
05-Nov-99
01-Nov-98
06-Nov-97
400
YELLOW MAIZE PRICES RANDFONTEIN
PRYSE VAN GEELMIELIES GELEWER IN RANDFONTEIN
PRICES OF YELLOW MAIZE DELIVERED IN RANDFONTEIN
Mei/May 2005 - Februarie/February 2008
Source:
Grain SA
2,700.00
01/05/05 - 30/04/06
01/05/06 - 30/04/07
2,500.00
2,300.00
Invoerpariteit ARG YM
2,100.00
Invoerpariteit VSA YM
1,700.00
1,500.00
SAFEX YM
1,300.00
1,100.00
900.00
700.00
Uitvoerpariteit VSA YM
500.00
Datum/Date
2-Feb-08
2-Jan-08
2-Dec-07
2-Nov-07
2-Oct-07
2-Sep-07
2-Aug-07
2-Jul-07
2-Jun-07
2-May-07
2-Apr-07
2-Mar-07
2-Feb-07
2-Jan-07
2-Dec-06
2-Nov-06
2-Oct-06
2-Sep-06
2-Aug-06
2-Jul-06
2-Jun-06
2-May-06
2-Apr-06
2-Mar-06
2-Feb-06
2-Jan-06
2-Dec-05
2-Nov-05
2-Oct-05
2-Sep-05
2-Aug-05
2-Jul-05
2-Jun-05
300.00
2-May-05
R/ton
1,900.00
Futures prices/Termynpryse (2008/02/15)
1. DOMESTIC PRICES
PER SAFEX (R/t) (a)
1. PLAASLIKE PRYSE
VOLGENS SAFEX (R/t) (a)
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
Nutritional Components of Yellow Maize
(DM base)
Starch 72.6 %
Maize Oil 4.3 %
Protein 9.8 %
NDF 9.0 % Minerals
1.6 %
Average Yield of Maize in Dry-Milling
Ethanol Production
• Ethanol (40%)
• DDGS (30%)
• CO2
(30%)
Ethanol Production
(Fermentation process)
Alpha-amylase
H2O
Gluco-amylase
Steam
CO2
Beer Well
Grinding
Liquefaction
Tanks
Fermentation
Slurry Mash
"cooking"
Ethanol
Syrup
Evaporator
Centrifuge
CDS
Distillation
Wet Cake
DDGS
WDG
Dryer Drum
Nutritional Characteristics of
Distillers Grains
• Low in starch
• Moderate in fat
• Moderate in protein
• High in fiber
• High in phosphorous
Byproduct composition (%DM)
Maize
DDGS
WDGS
ModDG
CDS
DM
CP
85-90
85-90
30-35
42-50
25-35
8-10
28-35
28-35
28-35
20-25
NDF
7-10
35-43
35-43
35-43
>5
Fat level variable: 8-14%
• dependent on solubles amount
S level important to watch
P in DGS: 0.75-1.0% P
Fat
3.5-4.0
10-12
10-12
10-12
20-25
Problem 1
Lysine and Methionine content of DGS
vs other protein ingredients
Problem 2 – Nutrient Variation
-Statistics for range of DDGS samples
analysed by NIRParameter
Range
Moisture
2.8 – 16.9
Protein
23.4 – 38.5
Fat
6.6 – 12.6
Ash
3.0 – 6.7
ADF
9.9 – 13.9
NDF
28.3 – 32.3
Crude Fiber 5.4 – 8.2
Starch
6.5 – 9.5
Samples
R2
SECV
303
311
124
126
34
34
34
104
0.981
0.987
0.913
0.828
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.653
0.57
0.53
0.40
0.39
0.65
0.81
0.54
0.46
Comparison of the Nutrient Content of Maize
Distiller’s Grains and Maize Condensed
Distiller’s Solubles
35
30
DM, %
CP, %
Fat, %
CF, %
Ash, %
Ca, %
P, %
25
20
15
10
5
0
Grains
Solubles
Nutrient composition and protein digestibility of
DDGS based on solubles level
Solubles levela, % of DDGS mix (DM)
Item
DM, %
CP, %
Fat, %
NDF, %
CP Digestibilityb
0
95.5
32.1
6.9
36.8
97.2
5.4
92.1
31.9
8.9
34.9
97.4
14.5
90.8
31.5
10.4
31.9
97.9
19.1
89.3
30.7
12.7
30.3
97.9
22.1
89.6
30.9
13.3
29.3
97.9
Solubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0%
solubles DDG
b In situ total-tract protein digestibility
a
Nutrient Composition of DDGS
8 Ethanol plants sampled (5MN, 2SD, 1NE)
Item
NRC
Crude Prot. % 27 - 33
EE %
7 – 13
NDF %
31 – 47
Mean
Range
30.1
10.5
48.8
26 - 36
4 - 19
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
Nutrition
Color
C
Particle size
Flowability
DDGS Varies in Nutrient Content and Digestibility,
Color, and Particle Size Among USA Sources
Protein Characteristics of DDGS
8 Ethanol plants sampled (5 MN, 2 SD, 1 NE)
Item
Crude Prot. %
Soluble CP
ADICP
RUP
RUP Dig.
NRC
Mean
Range
27 – 33
30.1
26 – 36
--------% of CP---------9.7
1 – 22
10 – 23
8.0
1 – 19
42 – 51
53.4
41 – 68
-------% of RUP------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)
Sample
L*
Color1
b*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
62.9
61.5
57.4
57.5
51.2
49.5
48.0
47.9
28.4
26.6
21.3
20.5
13.9
11.2
8.82
9.3
a*
Digestible Lys
(%)
7.6
6.1
5.8
6.9
5.7
4.1
4.3
4.4
0.66
0.64
0.61
0.59
0.52
0.47
0.37
0.18
Color [lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*)] measured with Minolta
Chroma Meter CR-300
ADIN NDF Starch
DDGS LOW
DDGS AVE
DDGS HIGH
%CP
%DM
%DM
30
17
9
45
42
39
3
5
7
ADIN
ADIN NDF
NDFStarch
Starch
%CP
%CP %DM
%DM %DM
%DM
DDGS
DDGSLOW
LOW 3030
DDGS
DDGS
AVE
AVE 1717
DDGS
DDGSHIGH
HIGH 9 9
4545
4242
3939
Wheat Bran = R1500/ton
DDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
33
55
77
ADIN NDF Starch
DDGS LOW
DDGS AVE
DDGS HIGH
%CP
%DM
%DM
30
17
9
45
42
39
3
5
7
Wheat Bran = R1500/ton
DDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
ADIN NDF Starch
DDGS LOW
DDGS AVE
DDGS HIGH
%CP
%DM
%DM
30
17
9
45
42
39
3
5
7
Wheat Bran = R1500/ton
DDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
ADIN NDF Starch
DDGS LOW
DDGS AVE
DDGS HIGH
%CP
%DM
%DM
30
17
9
45
42
39
3
5
7
Wheat Bran = R1500/ton
DDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
ADIN NDF Starch
DDGS LOW
DDGS AVE
DDGS HIGH
%CP
%DM
%DM
30
17
9
45
42
39
3
5
7
Wheat Bran = R1500/ton
DDGS/Chop = R1700/ton
DGS in Feedlots
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY
Self sustaining closed loop system – environmentally friendly
Beef and Manure production
Waste Management
Ethanol and DGS Production
DGS use in feedlots
• Inclusion < 15% (0.9-1.4 kg): protein
• Inclusion > 15% (1.8+ kg): energy
Studies Used - WDGS
Experiment
Sindt et al.
Larson et al.
Ham et al.
Fanning et al.
Vander Pol et al.
Vander Pol et al.
Buckner et al.
Corrigan et al.
Luebbe et al.
Year
1990
1991
1992
1997
2002
2004
2005
2005
2005
Diet DM % WDGS
0, 5.2, 12.6, 40
0, 5.2, 12.6, 40
0, 40
0, 30
0, 20, 40
0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50
0, 30
0, 15, 27.5, 40
0, 15, 30
Hd/Tx
40
40
32
20
10
48
50
40
32
Average Daily Gain
5
ADG, lb
4
Predicted Values
WDGS Level
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
2
y = -0.0005x2 + 0.0279x + 3.4669
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
% WDGS (DM basis) Linear
60
P < 0.01
Quadratic P < 0.01
ADG (lb)
3.47
3.70
3.83
3.87
3.81
3.66
F:G
Feed Conversion
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Predicted Values
WDGS Level
0
10
20
30
40
50
y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0309x + 6.4367
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% WDGS (DM basis) Linear
P < 0.01
Quadratic P = 0.09
F:G
6.44
6.16
5.95
5.81
5.74
5.73
Feeding Value (% of maize)
Feeding Value of WDGS
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
Predicted Values
WDGS Level
y = -0.49x + 150.9
0
10
20
30
10
20
30
40
50
40
50
% WDGS (DM basis)
60
FV % Corn
145
142
137
131
126
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
Average Daily Gain
5
ADG, lb
4
Predicted Values
DDGS Level
3
0
10
20
30
40
2
y = -0.00048x2 + 0.02466x + 3.4325
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
% DDGS (DM basis) Linear
P < 0.01
Quadratic P < 0.01
Cubic
P = 0.54
ADG (lb)
3.43
3.63
3.73
3.74
3.65
F:G
Feed Conversion
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Predicted Values
DDGS Level
0
10
20
30
40
y = 0.000521x2 - 0.0259x + 6.6201
0
10
20
30
40
50
% DDGS (DM basis) Linear
P = 0.07
Quadratic P = 0.02
Cubic
P = 0.97
F:G
6.62
6.41
6.31
6.31
6.42
Feeding Value (% of maize)
Feeding Value of DDGS
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
Predicted Values
DDGS Level
10
20
30
40
y = 0.0575x2 - 4.625x + 193.25
0
10
20
30
40
% DDGS (DM basis)
50
FV % Corn
153
123
107
100
Relationship between US Maize and DDGS prices
Source: CARD, Iowa State University
Feeding value of wet vs. dry
distillers grains (Ham et al., 1995)
WDGS
Control
Daily feed, kg
11.0bc
10.7b
Daily gain, kg
1.47b
1.68c
Feed/gain
7.69b
6.33c
Improvement (vs Control), %
Diet
-21.5
Distillers vs. Maize
-53.8
aLevel
DDGS
Lowa Mediuma Higha
11.5c
1.66c
6.94d
11.3cd
1.68c
6.76d
11.8d
1.71c
6.90d
………….11.9 (avg.)………..
………….29.8………………
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 Value
Dry 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