Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

An outlook on EU biofuel production and its implications for the animal feed industry 2530FIGURE 16Comparison of direct land use and net land use for different EU biofuels (ha/GJ)25Biofuel land use ha / GJ20151050Wheat Maize Rape Seed Sunflower Sugar Beet Oil PalmDirect land areaNet land areaTABLE 4.Typical GHG savings of biofuel from selected crops given inthe Renewable Energy Directive (RED)SourceBiofuelTypical GHG savingas % of fossil fuelemissionsSugar beet ethanol Bio-ethanol 61Wheat ethanol gas CHP Bio-ethanol 53Maize ethanol gas CHP Bio-ethanol 56Sugar cane ethanol Bio-ethanol 71Palm oil Biodiesel 36Soybean Biodiesel 40Rapeseed Biodiesel 45Sunflower Biodiesel 58Waste vegetable oil Biodiesel 88Notes: CHP = combined heat and powerroad transport. The GHG savings are considered below,both for direct biofuel production and for the indirect landusechanges associated with biofuel production in the EU.Biofuel GHG savingsThe calculation of biofuel GHG emissions includes crop cultivation,oil extraction, the biofuel production process andtransport of crops and biofuel. For crops with animal feedco-products, the upstream GHG emissions are allocatedbetween the biofuel and co-product according to the energycontent of each product. There are substantially differentGHG emissions for each biofuel crop and also a range ofGHG emissions for each biofuel crop, due to differences incultivation and processing. Typical GHG emission savingsTABLE 5.Biofuel cultivation GHG emissions (g CO 2 eq/MJ biofuel)Wheat Maize Rapeseed Sugar beetTypical RED 23.0 20.0 29.0 12.0United Kingdom 21.0 — 31.0 14.0Netherlands 24.1 16.2 25.3 8.7Germany 21.5 14.2 23.7 11.6France 21.0 10.5 24.0 9.5Ireland 20.0 — 24.0 12.0Cultivaton saving 2 6 5 3for different biofuel crops are provided in the RED (EC,2009) and some data are shown in Table 4.However, substantial improvements can be made tothese figures. The European Commission has publisheddata submitted by EU Member States with estimates of theGHG emissions from cultivation in different regions (EC,2011). Some of these data are shown in Table 5.The cultivation saving is an indicative difference betweenthe typical RED GHG emissions and those achieved in someregions of Member States. These data show that improvementsof up to 6 g CO 2 eq/MJ biofuel (equal to 7 percentof fossil fuel GHG emissions) can be achieved from lowercultivation emissions in some regions. Some biofuel processimprovements can give substantial GHG savings benefits.For example: adding methane capture to palm oil processingwould provide an additional GHG saving of 26 percent,while recovery of CO 2 from fermentation processes toreplace fossil fuel CO 2 could provide similar gains. GHG
26Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 6Anticipated biofuel GHG savings for EU biofuels by 2017–2020GHG savingGHG saving per RED creditCrop-based biodiesel 52.5% 52.5%Crop-based bio-ethanol 72.5% 72.5%Waste oil biodiesel 88.0% 44.0%Lignocellulosic biofuels 88.0% 44.0%savings figures are reported in the United Kingdom forall biofuel production and can be used as a guide to theimprovements in GHG emissions of some biofuels. UnitedKingdom sugar beet bio-ethanol has average GHG savingsof 77 percent (DfT, 2011) compared with the typical REDfigure of 61 percent. United Kingdom wheat bio-ethanol isnow reporting GHG savings of 78 percent (DfT, 2011) comparedwith the RED figure of 53 percent. These examplesshow that, without any monetary incentive to do so, biofuelproducers are already making process improvementsthat reduce GHG emissions and are able to report GHG savingssubstantially better than the typical quoted RED values.When monetary incentives are available, biofuel producerscan improve GHG emissions by sourcing crops from regionsthat have low cultivation GHG emissions, and work withfarmers to grow crops with higher yields and lower inputsto realize even lower cultivation GHG emissions. The averageGHG savings achieved will therefore be significantlygreater than the typical values quoted in the RED.All biofuels will have to meet a GHG savings thresholdof 50 percent in 2017, while new plants will have to meet a60 percent GHG savings threshold. Anticipated GHG savingsfor different types of biofuels for 2017–2020 are shown inTable 6. The typical GHG saving for sugar cane bio-ethanol is71 percent, and given the results for sugar beet- and wheatbasedethanol in the United Kingdom, an illustrative averagesaving of 72.5 percent for bio-ethanol has been assumed.An average figure for crop-based biodiesel is estimated at52.5 percent, but since the threshold figure is significantlyhigher than crop-based biodiesel GHG savings reported sofar, the amount of crop-based biodiesel that will be able tomeet this level of savings is unclear.To align FQD and RED targets, oil companies will needto meet high average GHG savings per RED credit. For cropbasedbiofuels, the GHG saving per RED credit will be the normalGHG savings figure. However, because waste oil biodieselwill count double towards the RED, but will not count doubletowards the FQD, the GHG saving of about 88 percent, willonly give a GHG saving of 44 percent per RED credit.Indirect land use changeIn situations where farmers use previously uncultivatedland to grow crops for biofuel production, there is directland use change (LUC) and methods are included withinthe RED to calculate the GHG effect of LUC. For example,oil palm grown on previously forested land will incur a substantialGHG penalty from LUC. For all other cases wherepart of a crop is used to produce biofuel, this will increasethe demand for the crop and therefore it is assumed therewill be an indirect land use change (ILUC) to meet theincreased crop production. If the biofuel production givesco-products that can displace other crops, this will also leadto an ILUC credit. Reflecting the ILUC credit of co-products,the net ILUC effect may be either a penalty or a credit inGHG savings. Concerns have been expressed that as aresult of consideration of ILUC, the overall GHG savings ofsome biofuels may be negative and this is undoubtedly anissue for some biofuels, such as palm oil biodiesel. Variousmacro-economic models purport to model ILUC effects,but they do not properly take into account several of thefactors that determine ILUC, especially for EU biofuel cropswith co-products.Detailed work done specifically to determine the carbonstock changes for crops in the EU and for growing soybeanin South America, allows a relatively simple and transparentILUC calculation for EU biofuel crops. The calculationis based on the land areas used for Figure 16 (Lywood,Pinkney and Cockerill, 2009a). Changes in crop outputas a result of biofuels demand will give changes in cropyields. While these changes were not taken into account inFigure 16, they are included here by using factors for theproportion of increase in crop output that derives from landarea increase (Lywood, Pinkney and Cockerill, 2009b).Figures for the carbon stock change for LUC in the EUrange from 2.2 t CO 2 /ha/yr (Lywood, 2011) to 6.2 t CO 2 /ha/yr (Heiderer et al., 2010). These figures are substantiallydifferent. Lywood (2011) takes account of growth of biofuelcrops in the EU reducing the historic abandonment ofarable land in the EU (DG Agri, 2011), so the carbon stockchange is the foregone carbon sequestration that wouldotherwise have occurred from carbon accumulation on theabandoned land. The figure from Heiderer et al. (2010)does not take account of land abandonment and assumesthat 38 percent of all new cropland in the EU will beobtained from deforestation. Figures for the carbon stockchange for LUC associated with growing soybean in SouthAmerica are 12.9 t CO 2 /ha/yr (Weightman et al., 2010) and13.5 t CO 2 /ha/yr (Heiderer et al., 2010). These carbon stockchanges for LUC are high, because most of the land forsoybean expansion is from conversion of cerrado grasslandand deforestation (Dros, 2004).The ILUC calculation, using averages of the carbon stockchange values above, is shown in Table 7. More researchwork needs to be done to obtain better agreement on thedata used for ILUC modelling.It can be seen that there are substantial ILUC creditsfrom growing cereals and rapeseed for biofuel in the EU.
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 29 and 30: 10Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 43: 24Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 54 and 55: 35Chapter 3Impact of United States
Page 56 and 57: Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 78: Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 95 and 96:
76Biofuel co-products as livestock
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:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
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?