Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sustainable and competitive use of co-products as feed in the rural bio-ethanol industry 287efficiency. It is also feasible to establish market linkages withthe animal production sector and to position the nutritionalsupplements based on their competitive production price incomparison with commercially available products. However,the work conducted by CLAYUCA and collaborating agencies,institutions and private sector companies has focusedon a strategy designed to promote biofuel production anduse by small-scale communities and farmer groups, i.e. theRUSBI approach. In this sense, the initial beneficiaries ofthe technology developed for the preparation and use ofthe nutritional supplements will be the commercial groupsthat are already operating the bio-ethanol distilleries, withlarge volumes of effluents that need to be managed witheconomic and environmental efficiency. The small-scalerural communities, cooperatives and farmer groups thatthe RUSBI approach is targeting will not be able to competewith the large-scale biofuels distilleries and sugar caneoperations. The objective of the RUSBI approach is not toenter this market. What RUSBI aims to achieve is to addvalue to the biofuels that can be produced by small-scalefarmers, promoting local use, for their own consumption,or for commercialization in local markets, supported by thegovernment (social ethanol) or by private-sector initiatives.The sustainable, competitive management of the effluentsbecomes a plus component of this approach, with potentialto help farmers improve the feeding systems for their animalsand increase incomes.For facilitating access by target farmers to the potentialbenefits of these technologies, the rural social biorefinerieshave to be promoted and established in the rural areas,and this process may still require some time, consideringthe initial investment required (around US$ 100 000 fora 300 L/day distillery). CLAYUCA has been working ongenerating the data required to convince and sensitizenational and local governments, rural development agenciesand the donor community, regarding the importanceof supporting strategies aimed at promoting productionand local uses of biofuel by poor farmers, located in remotevillages, and lacking access to any source of energy. Astudy was conducted (Gomes, 2010) to evaluate the technicaland economic feasibility of the implementation of arural social biorefinery (500 L/day) in three rural areas ofColombia (Puerto Carreño, La Macarena and Leticia), withproblems of high energy costs as a consequence of theirtotal dependence on fossil fuel. The study concluded thatthe implementation of the rural social biorefinery project isviable in one region (La Macarena), in which all the gasolineconsumed has to be brought in from other regions, at veryhigh cost. In contrast, in other regions, due to their proximityto other countries (Venezuela and Brazil) that guaranteesa steady supply of gasoline at lower prices, the bio-ethanolproduced in the rural social biorefinery would not be competitive(Figure 5).Another study, conducted in Brazil (Rosado, 2009),evaluated the economic feasibility of establishing a smallscalebiorefinery, with a specific focus on small rural properties.The viability of the operation of the distillery wasanalysed for both a cooperative system and an associationtype of organization. The operation of the biorefinery aspart of a productive model within a large rural property wasalso simulated. The analysis considered two raw materialoptions: sugar cane plus sweet sorghum, and sweet potatoplus sweet sorghum.The economic analysis was carried out through a cashflow simulation for a period of ten years, including the taxationelement as appropriate for each case. Different levelsFIGURE 5Comparison of gasoline, gasohol and ethanol prices in 3 regions of Colombia1.61.41.411.21.171.211.17 1.191.1410.80.670.920.850.60.40.20Leticia La Macarena Puerto CarreñoPrice per liter of gasolinePrice per liter of gasohol(30% ethanol)Production cost x liter of ethanolSource: Gomes, 2010.
288Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesof funding of the project were also tested, with differentiatedparameters for small and large properties. Parametersestimated included the Net Present Value (NPV) and theInternal Rate of Return (IRR). The biorefinery as a cooperativemodel was found the best option, with or withoutexternal financing, as compared with the associative model,mainly due to a lower tax regime for the cooperatives.KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCHNEEDSThe use of co-products, by-products and effluents frombio-ethanol production as nutritional supplements in animalfeed has been receiving increased attention in recent years,and although information about the technology options fortreatment and use of these effluents is available, there arestill some areas where more information, knowledge andresearch is required.The huge volume of effluents generated in the biofuelsprocessing operation is a major challenge. There is anurgent need to develop processing technologies that couldreduce considerably the large volumes of effluents generated.In large-scale operations, with high capital investments,this problem could be reduced to a large extent byevaporation of the effluents.In operations at smaller scale, with poor farmer groupsand rural communities, this option is more difficult to implementbecause they generally lack the resources to invest inprocesses that demand high capital and energy costs, and along time scale. Composting is one example of these options.Substantial capital investments are required, large areas needto be allocated, and a good composting process usuallyrequires from 70 to 90 days. Therefore, it is very importantto work on developing technologies that help to reduce theamount of water used in the production of the biofuel and,consequently, the volume of vinasse that is generated.An area that needs to strengthened, one that could helpto improve the overall efficiency of the biofuel productionprocess, is the conversion of vinasse into biogas, throughan anaerobic fermentation process. The biogas generatedcould then be used in the distillery, helping to reduce energycosts. The residue could be used as fertilizer. Finding anddeveloping new bacterial strains that could perform underthe hard conditions and characteristics of the vinasse wouldbe a major breakthrough for this process.Another area, in which there is still a large gap in knowledgeand information, is in the identification and validationof products that can act as flocculants and agglomerantsof the organic load present in the vinasse. Up to now,the most common products in use are the biopolymers.CLAYUCA, UFRGS and SoilNet have had very good resultsusing biopolymers. This has been the basis for the technologiesdeveloped for the formulation of the nutritional supplementsdescribed in this chapter. Although the cost of thebiopolymers is low (only 1.5 grams is required to prepare1 kilogram of nutritional supplement, and only 2.4 percentof the costs of producing 1 ton of nutritional supplementsis due to the biopolymers), the primary constraint is that thebiopolymers are usually produced by multinational companies,and there could be some difficulties in importing anddistributing them, especially if they are intended for use bysmall-scale, resource-poor farmer groups. Thus, there is aneed to develop alternative products that would functionin the same manner as the biopolymers, but that could beproduced and distributed locally and thus be more easilypurchased by small farmer groups.Finally, there is a need to develop and refine technologyprotocols for the production of products with greater valueadded,with good economic potential for use in the animalfeed market. The use of biofuel co-products in the productionof single-cell protein is one example of an emergingtechnology. CLAYUCA and UFRGS have already obtainedpromising results in pilot activities in which sugar canebasedvinasse has been used as a substrate to grow yeast(Candida utilis), with acceptable performance parameters.The biomass harvested from this process is the basis for anexcellent yeast cream with high protein percentages, thatcould have multiple uses in animal feeding and industry.This is an exciting field that will probably grow very rapidlyin the coming years.CONCLUSIONSThe effluents and different products and co-products generatedduring the biofuel production process have verygood potential as nutritional supplements in animal feed,especially for cattle. Co-product use in this way is an activitythat helps to improve the overall economic efficiency ofthe biofuel production process and has positive impacts onthe environment. Different technology options exist andtheir application to biofuel production enterprises is veryeasy, especially in large-scale, commercial operations withenough economic resources available for implementation.Scenarios of biofuel production and use with small-scalefarmer groups and rural communities, in which the RUSBIapproach is applied, have been presented in this chapter.The technologies that are currently available for the managementof the effluents through transforming them intonutritional supplements for animal feed (such as flocculationwith biopolymers) need to take into account the specificcontext of the target groups, which usually have limitedfinancial resources for investing, and with low educationallevels so learning to handle and assimilate sophisticatedprocesses and technologies takes time. The technologiesoffered have to be simple, efficient and sustainable.The transformation of the effluents from biofuelprocessing into nutritional supplements for use in animalfeed, especially cattle, could be a very important strategy
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:
Page 180:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 228 and 229:
209Chapter 11Co-products from biofu
Page 230 and 231:
Co-products from biofuel production
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256: 236Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 294 and 295: 275Chapter 15Sustainable and compet
Page 296 and 297: Sustainable and competitive use of
Page 310 and 311: 291Chapter 16Scope for utilizing su
Page 312 and 313: Scope for utilizing sugar cane baga
Page 322 and 323: 303Chapter 17Camelina sativa in pou
Page 324 and 325: Camelina sativa in poultry diets: o
Page 330 and 331: 311Chapter 18Utilization of lipid c
Page 332 and 333: Utilization of lipid co-products of
Page 342: Utilization of lipid co-products of
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?