Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

209Chapter 11Co-products from biofuel production forfarm animals – an EU perspectiveFriederike Hippenstiel, 1 Karl-Heinz Südekum, 1 Ulrich Meyer 2 and Gerhard Flachowsky 21Institute of Animal Science, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany2Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler Institute (FLI), Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Braunschweig, GermanyE-mail for correspondence: ksue@itw.uni-bonn.deABSTRACTThe first part of this chapter presents a brief history of co-products from bio-ethanol production. Co-products, suchas distillers grain, are well known for their beneficial nutrient composition and have been used in animal nutritionsince the early 1900s. Recent animal trials have shown that wheat-based dried distillers grain with solubles(DDGS) can replace protein supplements like soybean or rapeseed meals in dairy cow diets up to about 200 g/kgdry matter (DM). In contrast to maize-based DDGS in North America, which is higher in fat, European wheat-basedDDGS has not influenced milk fat content negatively. Moreover, trials with fattening bulls showed that DDGS as amain protein source is able to sustain high productive performance. Trials with grower-finisher pigs suggested thatDDGS up to 200 g/kg diet did not influence growth performance, fattening and slaughtering variables. Similarly,laying intensity of hens as well as egg quality and health were not affected by inclusion levels ranging from 150 g/kg to 300 g/kg diet. Trials with broilers suggest that diets that contain more than 100 g/kg DDGS may reduceperformance. Hence, it is recommended to add non-starch polysaccharide (NSP)-degrading enzymes (e.g. xylanaseor xylanase mixed with other enzymes) to poultry diets rich in DDGS.In the second part, a brief review and summary of data is presented on the use of glycerol for farm animals,with emphasis on ruminants, which will cover quality criteria for glycerol, rumen events and effects on feed intakeand performance of dairy cows. As a fail-safe usage for glycerol in diets of all farm animals, methanol should beremoved from the glycerol as far as technically possible. Glycerol at different purities may help to stabilize thehygienic quality of pelleted compound feeds without compromising pellet physical quality. Glycerol is a versatilefeedingstuff, in particular for ruminants. Data on ruminal turnover of glycerol would suggest that it could replacerapidly fermentable carbohydrates and thus is not a direct competitor of propylene glycol. Previous studies haveshown that glycerine may help to prevent ketoacidosis in high yielding dairy cows by increasing glucose precursors.Mature cattle can consume considerable quantities of glycerol (1 kg/day). However, greater dry matter intakes bycows supplemented with glycerine often did not result in increased milk or milk component yields. Further effortis thus required to fully explore the potential of glycerol in dairy cow diets, but type of diet and route of glyceroladministration seem to play important roles.In the third part, again putting an emphasis on ruminants, the feeding value of rapeseed products such as rapeseedmeal (solvent-extracted) and rapeseed cake (mechanically extracted) is reviewed. Rapeseed meal compares wellwith soybean meal for dairy cows if fed on an isonitrogenous basis. Milk and milk component yields were similar fordiets containing soybean meal or rapeseed meal. The value of rapeseed cake would benefit from standardizationof the composition, because varying crude fat and crude protein concentrations makes the feeding value difficultto predict and could also affect storage stability of the cake. Even though the amino acid composition in rapeseedproducts is quite well balanced and favourable to non-ruminant animals, the sensitive reaction of pigs and poultry toglucosinolates in rapeseed meal and cake are still of concern. Therefore, it is recommended to add iodine, since glucosinolatesact as antagonists. However, if glucosinolates are present in high concentrations, the negative effects maynot be compensated, even if iodine is supplemented at high levels. Concluding, it is evident that a more widespreaduse of rapeseed meal and rapeseed cake in diets for pigs and poultry requires further reduction of glucosinolate levels.Finally, energy utilization efficiency and sustainability of co-products from biofuel are addressed. To date, nodefinite regulations exist in order to assign emissions either to the main product or the co-product(s). Applying acausation principle, the producer or the responsible party should be accountable for all emissions. However, dryingof DGS is only of interest if the products will be utilized as feedstuffs for animals, and thus emissions associatedwith processing of co-products are not of interest or necessity for biofuel producing companies.
210Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesMAIN MESSAGES• Efficient utilization of biofuel co-products is akey tool towards more sustainable biofuel production.• Future research should quantify all activities inthe processing of biofuel co-products in order tobe able to evaluate carbon footprints.• DDGS is a valuable protein supplement for ruminantsand non-ruminants.• Glycerine is a valuable energy supplement forruminants and non-ruminants.• Rapeseed meal and cake are valuable proteinsupplements for ruminants and non-ruminants.INTRODUCTIONRoad transport fuels are considered to contribute about18 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in theEU (EEA, 2008; The Royal Society, 2008; Pinkney, 2009),with a consistent increase of about 1.6 percent per year(IEA, 2008a). Apart from more efficient vehicles and newtransportation technologies, politics considered the use ofbiofuels as an essential element to reduce the emissionsfrom fossil fuel and to decarbonize transport fuels. Someexpert groups assessed the GHG reduction potential ofbiofuel as being at least 50 percent of fossil fuel emissions(e.g. CONCAWE, EUCAR and JRC, 2007; RFA, 2011).Estimations by IEA (2008a) expect an increase in worldbiofuel consumption from 24.4 million tonne oil equivalent(Mtoe) in 2006 to 94 Mtoe in 2020; 125 Mtoe in 2030;and approximately 210 Mtoe in 2050 (about 6 percent ofthe global need; IEA, 2008a). In 2020, about 55 Mtoe ofbiofuel will be consumed in the United States and the EU.Fischer (2009) analysed the relationships among emergingbiofuel development, food security and climate change,concluding that the additional non-food use of cropswill have a significant impact on the world food system.Therefore, higher plant yields and the continuous developmentof the second generation of biofuels, produced fromwoody or herbaceous non-food plant materials, will receiveincreasing interest in the future (IEA 2008b).The CO 2 -saving effect or the carbon footprints (CF) ofbiofuel of the first generation depends on many factors,such as proper manufacturing, using the most appropriatefeedstock, efficiency of feed production for fermentation,processing of co-products (e.g. drying), and further use ofco-products. The utilization of co-products from biofuelproduction of the first generation, such as glycerine, oilseedcakes, meals and distillers grain with solubles in wet (DGS)or dried (DDGS) form is an important and controversialissue (see Windhorst, 2008; Fischer, 2009; Pinkney, 2009)that encompasses:• contribution to the reduction of GHG emissions; pressure on land use; and competition between feed, food and fuel for crop yields.Co-products may contribute to mitigate this conflict.They contain less fat and starch than oilseeds and cerealgrains, respectively, but more fibre, proteins and minerals.The crude protein (CP) concentration of the co-productsvaries between 300 and 400 g/kg dry matter (DM) and issimilar to some traditional feed protein sources. All environmentaland nutritional aspects and calculations (e.g.CF) should consider the whole processing chain and allfinal products. Crutzen et al. (2008) estimated the N 2 Orelease from agro-biofuel production without consideringco-products and their utilization. They concluded that useof cereal grains and rapeseed for biofuel production is veryineffective and environmentally unfriendly. However, in amore recent publication on this subject the same authorsperformed a life-cycle analysis and came to a similar conclusion,namely that biofuel production may trigger a netincrease in global warming (Mosier et al., 2009).The objective of this chapter is to analyse and summarizeresults of studies dealing with co-products frombiofuel production in farm animal nutrition under Europeanconditions.CO-PRODUCTS FROM BIO-ETHANOL PRODUCTIONHistoryDistillers grain with solubles in wet and dry forms are themost important co-products of alcohol production fromcereal grains. The starch of the raw material is mainly fermentedto alcohol. The co-product comprises all the othercomponents of the original substrate, such as CP, etherextract, fibre and ash as well as the CP from yeast used forfermentation. Traditionally, DGS at DM concentrations of40–90 g/kg has been fed to ruminants, horses and pigs inclose proximity to the distilleries.At the end of the nineteenth century considerable datawere available on the composition and the feed valueof distillers grain (e.g. Schulze and Maerker, 1872, andBehrend and Morgan, 1880, both noted in Kellner, 1905).Already at that time it was known that the raw materialshad the ability to influence the composition of DGS, withMaercker (1908) describing that the fermentation of cerealgrains resulted in co-products (i.e. DGS) with the highestconcentration of nutrients, while molasses fermentationgave the lowest nutritive value. On the basis of the compositionof the original substrate and the alcohol output,
Page 1 and 2:
BIOFUEL CO-PRODUCTS AS LIVESTOCK FE
Page 3:
Recommended citationFAO. 2012. Biof
Page 6 and 7:
vco-products to swine - Feeding cru
Page 8 and 9:
viiCHAPTER 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 10 and 11:
ixPrefaceHumans are faced with majo
Page 13 and 14:
xiiCBMCBSCCDSCCKCDOCDSCFCFBCFRCGECI
Page 15 and 16:
xivHCHOHClHCNHisH-JPKMHMCHPDDGHPDDG
Page 17 and 18:
xviPPbPCVPDPEMPFADPhePJPKCPKEPKMPKO
Page 19 and 20:
xviiiWBPWCGFWDGWDGSWDGSHWPCWTWWWNSK
Page 21 and 22:
2Biofuel co-products as livestock f
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
10Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 54 and 55:
35Chapter 3Impact of United States
Page 56 and 57:
Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 120 and 121:
101Chapter 6Hydrogen sulphide: synt
Page 122 and 123:
Hydrogen sulphide in cattle fed co-
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 174 and 175:
155Chapter 8Utilization of crude gl
Page 176 and 177: Utilization of crude glycerin in be
Page 178 and 179: Utilization of crude glycerin in be
Page 180: Utilization of crude glycerin in be
Page 183 and 184: 164Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 230 and 231: Co-products from biofuel production
Page 246: Co-products from biofuel production
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 294 and 295:
275Chapter 15Sustainable and compet
Page 296 and 297:
Sustainable and competitive use of
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
291Chapter 16Scope for utilizing su
Page 312 and 313:
Scope for utilizing sugar cane baga
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
303Chapter 17Camelina sativa in pou
Page 324 and 325:
Camelina sativa in poultry diets: o
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
311Chapter 18Utilization of lipid c
Page 332 and 333:
Utilization of lipid co-products of
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 370 and 371:
351Chapter 21Use of detoxified jatr
Page 372 and 373:
Use of detoxified jatropha kernel m
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
379Chapter 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 400 and 401:
Use of Pongamia glabra (karanj) and
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
403Chapter 23Co-products of the Uni
Page 424 and 425:
Co-products of the United States bi
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 486 and 487:
467Chapter 26An assessment of the p
Page 488 and 489:
An assessment of the potential dema
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
Page 494 and 495:
Page 496 and 497:
Page 498 and 499:
Page 500 and 501:
Page 502 and 503:
483Chapter 27Biofuels: their co-pro
Page 504 and 505:
Biofuels: their co-products and wat
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
Page 520 and 521:
501Chapter 28Utilization of co-prod
Page 522 and 523:
Utilization of co-products of the b
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Page 540 and 541:
Page 542 and 543:
523Contributing authorsSouheila Abb
Page 544 and 545:
Contributing authors 525for the Fee
Page 546 and 547:
Contributing authors 527Friederike
Page 548 and 549:
Contributing authors 529Sustainable
Page 550 and 551:
Contributing authors 531During the
Page 552:
Contributing authors 533(Hons.) and
show all

Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?