Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Biofuels: their co-products and water impacts in the context of life-cycle analysis 491TABLE 4Distillers grain with solubles displacement ratios at the feedlot levelDisplacement ratio between DGS and conventional feed(kg/kg of DGS on a DM basis)Dry DGSWet DGSLivestock Maize Soybean Meal Urea Maize Soybean Meal UreaBeef Cattle 1.203 0.000 0.068 1.276 0.000 0.037Dairy Cattle 0.445 0.545 0.000 0.445 0.545 0.000Swine 0.577 0.419 0.000Poultry 0.552 0.483 0.000Average 0.751 0.320 0.024Source: Arora, Wu and Wang, 2010.Dry and Wet DGS Combined0.788 0.304 0.022FIGURE 9GHG emissions as a result of land use changes associated with maize ethanol (g CO 2 e/MJ)100FAPRI80gCO 2e/MJ604020FAPRI & FASOMGTAP - unrevisedGTAP - revised0Searchinger et al.,2008EPA 2010 CARB 2009 Hertel et al.,2010Tyner et al.,2010(2001 baseline)Tyner et al.,2010(2006baseline,partiallyupdated)Tyner et al.,2010(2006baseline,updatedthrough 2015)demand trends without ethanol production (the so-calledreference case for global food supply and demand), andaccurate modelling of the substitution of conventionalanimal feed with DGS. One model that permits calculationof LUC is Purdue University’s Global Trade Analysis Project(GTAP) model, which has been developed primarily toevaluate global agricultural commodity trade linkages.GTAP has recently been modified to model maizeethanol production. Figure 9 compares the revised GTAPmodel predictions of GHG emissions resulting from LUCwith previous studies for maize ethanol programmes. Theprevious studies either used other models (Iowa StateUniversity’s Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute(FAPRI) model, Texas A&M’s Forest and Agricultural SectorOptimization Model (FASOM)) or older GTAP versions.The most recent GTAP model version predicts significantlylower LUC and resulting GHG emissions than previousstudies. For example, Searchinger et al. (2008), whoused the FAPRI model, predicted GHG emissions (in gCO 2 e/MJ of ethanol) that were 70 percent higher than calculationsby California Air Resources Board (CARB, 2009) andHertel et al. (2010), who used an earlier version of GTAP.Revisions to GTAP resulted in an estimate of GHG emissions85 percent below that of Searchinger et al. (2008), asreflected in the results of Tyner et al. (2010).Although the advances made in this work are significant,it should be noted that research is ongoing to furtherreduce uncertainties in incorporating LUC into economicmodels. In particular, uncertainties still exist in CGE models,including (1) modelling of DGS and other co-produced animalfeeds; (2) global growth in food supply and demand;(3) global available land types and their potential grainproduction yields; and (4) below- and above-ground carbonstocks for different land cover types.BIOFUEL LCA RESULTSFigure 10 displays life-cycle carbon dioxide equivalent(CO 2 e) emissions for petroleum gasoline, six types of maizeethanol, three types of cellulosic ethanol, and sugar caneethanol. Maize ethanol produced at coal-powered plants
492Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesFIGURE 10Life-cycle GHG emissions of petroleum gasoline, maize [corn] ethanol, cellulosic ethanol and sugar cane ethanolCo-ProductLife-Cycle GHG (gCO 2e/MJ)120100806040200-20-40-60-80-100Plant TypeProcessFuelFeedstockWet Mill Dry Mill Wet Mill Avg. Dry Mill Dry MillCoal Coal Avg. Avg. Avg. NGAvg. DDGS Avg. Avg. Avg. WDGS Electricity Electricity Electricity ElectricityGasoline Corn ForestResidueFuel Use Fuel Production Life CycleSwitchgrassStoverSugar CaneFIGURE 11Life-cycle GHG emissions sources of maize [corn] ethanol, switchgrass-derived cellulosic ethanol andpetroleum gasoline (g CO2e/MJ)175150Life-Cycle GHG Emissions (gCO 2e/MJ)1251007550250-25-50-75-100Corn Ethanol Cell. Ethanol, Switchgrass GasolineCombustionT&DFuel ProductionCrude RecoveryAgrochemical Field EmissionsAgrochemical ManufacturingLUCFarmingCo-product CreditCO 2in Ethanoldoes not offer GHG reductions compared with gasoline.Maize ethanol produced at a dry-milling plant using anaverage fuel mix (i.e. a mix of natural gas and coal for theethanol industry), however, does offer a GHG emissionsreduction compared with gasoline.Cellulosic ethanol, regardless of feedstock type, offerssignificant reductions in GHG emissions compared withgasoline, in part because cellulosic feedstock productionrequires less energy and fertilizer inputs, and because of thebenefits of generating electricity as a co-product. Similarly,sugar cane ethanol has lower life-cycle GHG emissions thangasoline. The benefit is more pronounced when consideringelectricity as a co-product.Figure 11 presents GHG emission sources for three fueltypes. It is clear that CO 2 uptake during crop growth andco-product benefits result in the reduced GHG emissions
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:
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: 440Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 486 and 487: 467Chapter 26An assessment of the p
Page 488 and 489: An assessment of the potential dema
Page 502 and 503: 483Chapter 27Biofuels: their co-pro
Page 504 and 505: Biofuels: their co-products and wat
Page 520 and 521: 501Chapter 28Utilization of co-prod
Page 522 and 523: Utilization of co-products of the b
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?