BIODOSEL PROIZVODNJA

8/20/2019 BIODOSEL PROIZVODNJA

1/552

BIOFUEL CO-PRODUCTS AS LIVESTOCK FEED

Opportunities and challenges


2/552

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSRome, 2012

BIOFUEL CO-PRODUCTS AS LIVESTOCK FEED

Opportunities and challenges

Editor Harinder P.S. Makkar


3/552

Recommended citationFAO. 2012. Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges, edited by Harinder P.S. Makkar. Rome.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in thisinformation product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, cityor area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers,whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these havebeen endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similarnature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) anddo not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-107299-8

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination ofmaterial in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorizedfree of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercialpurposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications forpermission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and allqueries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch,

Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO,Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2012


4/552

iii

Contents

Preface ix

Acknowledgements x

Abbreviations used in the text xi

CHAPTER 1An outlook on world biofuel production and its implications for the animal feed

industry 1Geoff Cooper and J. Alan Weber

Introduction: the case for expanding biofuel production – Common biofuels,feedstocks and co-products – Generally accepted uses of feed co-products inanimal diets – Historical volumes of feed from biofuel co-products – Biofuels

and co-product outlook to 2020 – Knowledge gaps and future research needs –Conclusions – Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 2An outlook on EU biofuel production and its implications for the animal

feed industry 13Warwick Lywood and John Pinkney

Introduction – The need for biofuels to tackle climate change – EU biofuelproduction – Biofuel processes – Biofuel crops – EU animal feed supply –Biorefining of crops for biofuel and animal feed – Sustainability of biofuels andanimal feed – Biofuel and animal feed scenarios for 2020 – Knowledge gaps andfuture research needs – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 3Impact of United States biofuels co-products on the feed industry 35

G.C. Shurson, H. Tilstra and B.J. Kerr

Introduction – Evolution of DG production and use in the United States feedindustry – Future impact of United States ethanol production on the feedindustry – Nutrient composition, digestibility and feeding value of new maizeco-products for livestock and poultry – Other emerging or potential processingand maize co-product production technologies – Feed and food safety questions– Expanded uses of co-products – Knowledge gaps and future research needs –Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 4

Utilization of wet distillers grains in high-energy beef cattle diets basedon processed grain 61M.L. Galyean, N.A. Cole, M.S. Brown, J.C. MacDonald, C.H. Ponce and J.S. Schutz

Introduction – Concentration and source of distillers grains – Effects of specificnutrients and feed ingredients – Potential interactions with grain processing andfeed additives – Environmental effects of feeding wet distillers grains in high-energy,processed grain diets – Knowledge gaps and future research needs – Conclusions –Bibliography


5/552

iv

CHAPTER 5Utilization of feed co-products from wet or dry milling for beef cattle 77

G.E. Erickson, T.J. Klopfenstein and A.K. Watson

Introduction – Beef finishing – Protein supplementation – Energy replacement – Highinclusions – Roughages – Grain processing – Sulphur – Forage-fed cattle – Energysupplementation – Protein supplementation – Replacement heifers – Environmentalissues – Greenhouse gas and life-cycle analysis – New developments – Future researchareas – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 6Hydrogen sulphide: synthesis, physiological roles and pathology associated with

feeding cattle maize co-products of the ethanol industry 101 Jon P. Schoonmaker and Donald C. Beitz

Introduction – Dietary sources of sulphur – Mechanism of action of excess dietarysulphur– Sources of hydrogen sulphide – Knowledge gaps and future researchneeds – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 7Feeding biofuel co-products to dairy cattle 115

Kenneth F. Kalscheur, Alvaro D. Garcia, David J. Schingoethe, Fernando Diaz Royónand Arnold R. Hippen

Introduction – Nutrient composition of biofuel co-products – Degradability ofdistillers grain from different cereal grains – Feeding DGS to dairy calves – FeedingDGS to dairy heifers – Feeding DGS to dry cows – Feeding DGS to lactating dairycows – Wet versus dried distillers grain with solubles – Feeding different cereal typesof distillers grain with solubles – Feeding other ethanol co-products to dairy cattle –Feeding glycerol to dairy cattle – Storage of biofuel co-products – Future biofuelco-products (next generation) – Knowledge gaps and future research needs –Conclusions – Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 8Utilization of crude glycerin in beef cattle 155

J.S. Drouillard

Introduction – Fermentation by ruminal microbes – Impact of glycerin on in vivodigestion – Performance of cattle supplemented crude glycerin – Conclusions –Bibliography

CHAPTER 9Nutritional value and utilization of wheat dried distillers grain with solubles

in pigs and poultry 163 J. Noblet, P. Cozannet and F. Skiba

Introduction – Composition and chemical characteristics of wheat DDGS – Energy

value of wheat DDGS – Protein value of wheat DDGS – Minerals and phosphorusvalue of wheat DDGS – Performance in poultry and pigs fed wheat DDGS – Feedadditives potential for wheat DDGS – Knowledge gaps and future research needs –Conclusions – Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 10Feeding biofuels co-products to pigs 175

G.C. Shurson, R.T. Zijlstra, B.J. Kerr and H.H. Stein

Introduction –Biofuels co-products used in swine diets– Wet-milling co-products –Nutrientand energy composition and digestibility in distillers grain co-products – Improving nutrientdigestibility of DDGS – In vitro energy digestibilty in DDGS – Energy prediction equationsfor DDGS – Nutrient and energy composition and digestibility in maize co-products from

wet-milling – Crude glycerin – Special considerations for co-products from theethanol industry – Special considerations for crude glycerin – Feeding distillers


6/552

v

co-products to swine – Feeding crude glycerin to swine – Effects of DDGS on pighealth – Effects of DDGS on nutrient concentration and gas and odour emissionsof swine manure – Knowledge gaps and future research needs – Conclusions –Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 11Co-products from biofuel production for farm animals – an EU perspective 209

Friederike Hippenstiel, Karl-Heinz Südekum, Ulrich Meyer and Gerhard Flachowsky

Introduction – Co-products from bio-ethanol production – Co-products from biodieselproduction – Energy utilization efficiency and sustainability of co-products frombiofuel production in animal nutrition – Knowledge gaps and future research needs –Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 12Utilizing co-products of the sweet sorghum-based biofuel industry as livestock

feed in decentralized systems 229P. Srinivasa Rao, Belum V.S. Reddy, Ch. Ravinder Reddy, M. Blümmel, A. Ashok Kumar,

P. Parthasarathy Rao and G. Basavaraj Introduction to the sweet sorghum value chain – Sweet sorghum as bio-ethanolfeedstock – Co-products – Grain utilization – Animal studies with sweet sorghumbagasse – Utilization of foam, vinasse and steam – Economic importance of bagassefor the sweet sorghum value chain in the decentralized system – Knowledge gaps andfuture research needs – Conclusions – Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 13Utilization of oil palm co-products as feeds for livestock in Malaysia 243

M. Wan Zahari, A.R. Alimon and H.K. Wong

Introduction – Co-products from oil palm plantations (field residues) – Co-productsfrom oil palm milling – Maximizing livestock production in an oil palm environment –Conclusions – Bibiliography

CHAPTER 14Use of palm kernel cakes (Elaeis guineensis and Orbignya phalerata),

co-products of the biofuel industry, in collared peccary (Pecari tajacu) feeds 263Natália Inagaki de Albuquerque, Diva Anélie de Araujo Guimarães,Hilma Lúcia Tavares Dias,Paulo César Teixeira and José Aparecido Moreira

Introduction – Use of babassu (Orbignya phalerata) in the feed of collared peccaries raisedin captivity – Palm kernel cake (Elaeis guineensis) use in the feed of collared peccariesraised in captivity – Knowledge gaps and future research needs – Conclusions –Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 15Sustainable and competitive use as livestock feed of some co-products,

by-products and effluents generated in the bio-ethanol industry 275Harold Patino, Bernardo Ospina Patiño, Jorge Luis Gil and Sonia Gallego Castillo

Introduction – Bio-ethanol production trials with the RUSBI approach – Transformationof co-products, by-products and effluents into nutritional supplements for animalfeeding – Bio-economic animal feeding trials with the nutritional supplements –Economic viability of the use of nutritional supplements in animal feeding – Knowledgegaps and future research needs – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 16Scope for utilizing sugar cane bagasse as livestock feed – an Asian perspective 291

S. Anandan and K.T. Sampath

Introduction – Sugar cane production and co-products – Knowledge gaps and futureresearch needs – Conclusions – Bibliography


7/552

vi

CHAPTER 17Camelina sativa in poultry diets: opportunities and challenges 303

Gita Cherian

Introduction – Camelina sativa meal: chemical composition and nutritional value –

Feeding camelina meal to poultry – Developing Camelina sativa as a functional feed:challenges – Conclusions – Acknowledgments – Bibliography

CHAPTER 18Utilization of lipid co-products of the biofuel industry in livestock feed 311

Z. Wiesman, O. Segman and L. Yarmolinsky

Introduction to biofuels – Soapstock – Composition – Phytonutrients – Effect onruminants – Potential risks from fractions containing such phytochemicals – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 19Potential and constraints in utilizing co-products of the non-edible oils-based

biodiesel industry – an overview 325Souheila Abbeddou and Harinder P.S. Makkar

Introduction – Promising non-edible oil plant species – Chemical composition ofco-products of the non-edible oil-based biodiesel industry – Toxicity of non-edible cakesand meals – Possibility of feeding some untreated non-edible cakes and meals fromseeds that give non-edible oils – Possibility of feeding some treated non-edible cakesand meals from seeds that give edible oils – Detoxification methods – Effects of feedingtreated non-edible cakes or meals on animal response and performance– Knowledgegaps and future research needs – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 20Status of biofuels in India and scope of utilizing castor (Ricinus communis) cake –

a biofuel co-product – as livestock feed 339

S. Anandan, N.K.S. Gowda and K.T. SampathIntroduction – Status of biofuels in India – Biofuels feedstock and co-products – Castorcake production and utilization – Toxic principles – Detoxification and de-allergenationof castor cake – Feeding studies using castor cake – Knowledge gaps and futureresearch needs – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 21Use of detoxified jatropha kernel meal and protein isolate in diets of

farm animals 351Harinder P.S. Makkar, Vikas Kumar and Klaus Becker

Introduction – Jatropha – Detoxified Jatropha curcas kernel meal as a protein sourcein aqua feed – Use of detoxified jatropha kernel meal as a protein source in white legshrimp feed – Use of Jatropha curcas kernel meal of a non-toxic jatropha genotype inaqua feed – Use of Jatropha platyphylla kernel meal as a protein source inaqua feed – Use of detoxified Jatropha curcas protein isolate in common carpfeed – Conclusions regarding use of detoxified kernel meal and detoxified proteinisolate from Jatropha curcas as aqua feed – Use of detoxified Jatropha curcas kernel meal in poultry feed – Use of detoxified Jatropha curcas kernel meal in pigfeed – Challenges and opportunities in using as livestock feed by-products obtainedduring the production of biodiesel from jatropha oil – Guidelinesfor using detoxified kernel meal and detoxified protein isolatefrom Jatropha curcas as a protein source in animal feed – Potentialchallenges in using detoxified kernel meal and detoxified proteinisolate from Jatropha curcas in feeds – Environmental considerations – Future studies –Final comments – Bibliography


8/552

vii

CHAPTER 22Use of Pongamia glabra (karanj) and Azadirachta indica (neem) seed cakes

for feeding livestock 379Narayan Dutta, A.K. Panda and D.N. Kamra

Introduction – Karanj (Pongamia glabra) cake – Neem seed cake – Recommendations –Knowledge gaps and future research needs – Bibliography

CHAPTER 23Co-products of the United States biofuels industry as alternative feed

ingredients for aquaculture 403Kamal Mjoun and Kurt Rosentrater

Introduction – Properties of distillers grain – Distillers grain: issues, challenges,knowledge gaps and research needs – Properties of crude glycerine – Crude glycerineissues, challenges, knowledge gaps and research needs – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 24Cultivation of micro-algae for lipids and hydrocarbons, and utilization of spent

biomass for livestock feed and for bio-active constituents 423G.A. Ravishankar, R. Sarada, S. Vidyashankar, K.S. VenuGopal and A. Kumudha

Introduction – Algal biodiversity for the production of lipids and hydrocarbons – Greenalgal lipids and hydrocarbons – Diatoms as sources of lipids – Large-scale cultivation ofmicro-algae – Downstream processing and conversion to biofuels – Conversion of algallipids and biomass to bio-energy – Ethanol from algal feedstock – Use of micro-algae forfood, feed and bio-actives – Micro-algae as sources of feed – Micro-algae as sources ofbio-active molecules – Techno-economic analysis of micro-algal biomass production forbiofuels, and co-products – Biorefinery approach in micro-algal utilization – Knowledgegaps and future research needs – Conclusions – Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 25

Land use in Australia for biofuels and bio-energy: opportunities and challengesfor livestock industries 447 Andrew L. Braid

Introduction – Current biofuel production in Australia – New production systems forbiofuels and bio-energy in Australia – Lignocellulosic-based biofuels – Expanding landuse for bio-energy and biofuel: the effect on livestock industries – Knowledge gaps andfuture research needs – Conclusions – Acknowledgements – Bibliography

CHAPTER 26An assessment of the potential demand for DDGS in Western Canada:

institutional and market considerations 467Colleen Christensen, Stuart Smyth, Albert Boaitey and William Brown

Introduction – Changes and trends in Western Canadian agriculture – DDGS use inrations – Opportunities for development of the DDGS market in Western Canada –Challenges of creating new markets – Emerging DDGS market – Knowledge gaps andfuture research needs – Conclusions – Bibliography

CHAPTER 27Biofuels: their co-products and water impacts in the context of life-cycle analysis 483

Michael Wang and Jennifer Dunn

Introduction – Biofuel production technologies – Market potential of biofuel co-products –Animal feed by-products of maize starch ethanol manufacturing – LCA of biofuels –Co-products – Biofuel LCA results – Co-product allocation methodologies and impactson LCA results – Water consumption allocation between ethanol and co-products –Knowledge gaps and future research needs – Conclusions – Acknowledgements –

Bibliography


9/552

viii

CHAPTER 28Utilization of co-products of the biofuel industry as livestock feeds – a synthesis 501

Tim Smith and Harinder Makka

Introduction – Background – Ethanol – Biodiesel – Micro-algae – Economics –Knowledgegaps and future research needs – Acknowledgements

Contributing authors 523


10/552

ix

Preface

Humans are faced with major environmental challenges as a result of climate change and a predicted

shortage of fossil fuels for transport. The underlying causes of climate change are not fully understood,

but it is accepted that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, especially methane, are a contributory fac-

tor over which we can exert some control. The shortage of fossil fuels can be mitigated by blending

them with biofuels, either ethanol with petrol, or biodiesel with diesel, both of which also result in

a reduction in carbon emissions and for which minimum inclusion rates have been agreed. However,

biofuel production is currently from agricultural crops, usually starch-containing cereals for ethanol and

oilseeds for biodiesel. To be successful this approach must be economically sustainable and must not

generate conflict with the traditional use of agricultural land in producing food and feed for humans

and livestock. Both criteria can only be met if the residues of biofuel production, referred to as co-products, are fully utilized.

One of the objectives of producing this publication was to collate, discuss and summarize state-

of-the-art knowledge on current and future availability of co-products from the feedstocks most used

for the production of biofuels, and use of the co-products as livestock feed. The original feedstocks

tended to be major agricultural crops, cereals, especially maize and wheat, and sugar cane for ethanol

production, and soybean meal and rapeseed meal for biodiesel. An underlying feature has been the

spread worldwide of an industry originally based in North America and Europe.

With an increasing need for biofuels and expanding markets for co-products, another objective was

to summarize information on alternative feedstocks, with an emphasis on cellulosic materials and non-

conventional sources. Many of these are grown on sub-prime land and have minimum requirements

for irrigation and other inputs. Detoxification of some seed meals and cakes is necessary before they

can be considered as feeds. With other crops, such as oil palm, promoting use of the residues andco-products available both from the field and processing is required. The potential contribution from

micro-algae presents a new concept in that their production is not land-based and processing can be

achieved through the use of coastal waters. Other developments include broadening of the use of

co-products from ruminant, especially cattle, and pigs, to poultry and fish (aquaculture), enhancement

of the availability of existing co-products, and the introduction of new ones.

The third objective of this publication was to identify gaps in knowledge and define research topics

to fill them. Subjects predominating include standardization of product quality, needed to aid ration

formulation; testing of new products; development of detoxification procedures; research on micro-

algae; and life cycle analysis linked to traditional nutritional appraisal.

This publication covers a wide array of co-products and is a timely contribution as people’s aspira-

tions are rising, evident from an increasing demand for livestock products and an ever greater relianceon transport, whether by air, road or sea, coupled with the challenge of maintaining agricultural

production when faced with global warming. We hope that this publication will be useful to policy-

makers, researchers, the feed industry, science managers and NGOs, and will contribute to making

information-based decisions on issues related to food-feed-fuel competition and emerging challenges

of global warming, in addition to making the efficient use of a wide range of co-products from the

biofuel industry as livestock feed.

Berhe G. TekolaDirector

Animal Production and Health Division


11/552

x

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all those who contributed so diligently and excellently to the content of this

document. In particular, thanks go to the many reviewers, who spent many hours in critically reviewing

the contributions. We also thank Samuel Jutzi, Simon Mack and Philippe Ankers for their support for

this work. The contributions of Thorgeir Lawrence, Claudia Ciarlantini, Chrissi Smith Redfern, Simona

Capocaccia, Suzanne Lapstun and Myrto Arvaniti towards editing and layout setting processes are

gratefully acknowledged.


12/552

xi

Abbreviations used in the text

A:P Acetate-to-propionate ratio

AA Amino acid

AAFCO American Association of Feed Control Officials

ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics

ACC Australian Commercial Cross

ADF Acid-detergent fibre

ADFI Average daily feed intake

ADG Average daily gain

ADICP Acid-detergent-insoluble crude proteinADIN Acid-detergent insoluble N

ADL Acid-detergent lignin

AFEX Ammonia fibre expansion

AFIA American Feed Industry Association

AI Artificial insemination

ALA Alpha-linolenic acid

Ala Alanine

ALP Alkaline phosphatase

AME Apparent metabolizable energy

AMEn Apparent metabolizable energy corrected for zero nitrogen deposition

AMTS Agriculture Modeling and Training Systems

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [USDA]

Arg Arginine

Asp Asparagine

AST Aspartate transaminase

ATNSKC Alkali-treated NSC

ATP Adenosine tri-phosphate

ATTD Apparent total tract digestibility

AUD Australian dollars

BLR Bagasse leaf residue

BN Binder treated

BOD Biological oxygen demand

BP Beet pulp

BRSL Bagasse residue and stripped leaves

BRSLB Bagasse plus stripped leaves-based feed block

BUN Blood urea nitrogen

BW Bodyweight

C/N Carbon:Nitrogen ratio

Ca Calcium

Ca(OH)2 Calcium hydroxide

CABI Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International

CB-1A Castor bean 1 allergen


13/552

xii

CBM Castor bean meal

CBS Cystathionine β-synthase

CCDS Maize [corn] condensed distillers solubles

CCK Cholecystokinin

CDO Cysteine dioxygenase

CDS Condensed distillers solubles

CF Crude fibre

CFB Commercial feed block

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGE Computable General Equilibrium

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture

CLA Conjugated linoleic acid

CLAYUCA Latin American and Caribbean Consortium to Support Research andDevelopment of Cassava

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CP Crude protein

CPO Crude palm oil

CSE Cystathionine γ-ligase

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

CSM Cotton seed meal

Cu Copper

Cys Cysteine

DCGF Dry maize [corn] gluten feed

DCP Digestible crude protein

DCU Decentralized crushing unit

DDG Dried distillers grain

DDGS Dried distillers grain with solubles

DE Digestible energy

DG Distillers grain

DGNC De-oiled groundnut cake

DGS Distillers grain with solubles

DHA Docosahexaenoic acid

DIM Days in milk

DIP Degradable intake proteinDJKM Detoxified jatropha kernel meal

DJPI Detoxified jatropha protein isolates

DJSM Detoxified jatropha seed meal

DKC De-oiled karanj cake

DM Dry matter

DMD Dry matter digestibility

DMI Dry matter intake

DNSC De-oiled neem seed cake

DNSM De-oiled neem seed meal

DRC Dry-rolled cornEAA Essential amino acid


14/552

xiii

EC European Commission

ED Effective protein degradability

EE Ether extract

EFB Empty fruit bunches

EIA United States Energy Information Administration

EJ Exajoule [1018 joules]

EKC Expeller-pressed karanj cake

Embrapa Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária

EMS Ear-maize silage

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Eicosapentaenoic acid

ePURE European Renewable Ethanol Association

ERD Effective ruminal degradability

ERS Economic Research Service

ESR Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

ETOH Ethanol

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAPRI Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute

FASOM Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model

FCE Feed conversion efficiency

FCM Fat-corrected milk

FCR Feed conversion ratio

FDA Food and Drug Administration [USA]

FEDNA Federación Española para el Desarrollo de la Nutrición Animal

FELCRA Federal Land Consolidated Authority

FELDA Federal Land Development Authority

FOBI Feed Opportunities from the Biofuels Industries

FQD Fuel Quality Directive [of the EU]

G:F Grain-to-feed ratio [feed efficiency]

GCAU Grain consuming animal unit

GE Gross energy

GHG Greenhouse gas

GHMC Ground high-moisture maize

GLA Gamma linolenic acidGlu Glutamate

Gly Glycine

GNC Groundnut cake

GREET Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation

GS Grass silage

GTAP Global Trade Analysis Project

H+ Hydrogen ion

H2S Hydrogen sulphide

H2S2O7 Thiosulphuric acid

H2SO3 Sulphurous acidHC Hemicellulose


15/552

xiv

HCHO Formaldehyde

HCl Hydrochloric acid

HCN Hydrogen cyanide

His Histidine

H-JPKM Heated Jatropha platyphylla kernel meal

HMC High moisture maize

HPDDG High-protein dried distillers grain

HPDDGS High-protein dried distillers grain with solubles

HRS Hard Red Spring [wheat]

HRW Hard Red Winter [wheat]

HS- Hydrosulphide ion

HS-SH Hydrogen persulphide

HUFA Highly unsaturated fatty acids

ICA Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

ICOA International Castor Oil Association

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

Ile Isoleucine

ILUC Indirect land use change

IMOD Inclusive market-oriented development

In vitro D In vitro digestibility

INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique

IRR Internal Rate of Return

IU International Unit

IVOMD In vitro organic matter digestibility

JCM Jatropha curcas kernel meal

JPI Jatropha protein isolate

JPKM Jatropha platyphylla kernel meal

K+ Potassium ion

KK Kedah-Kelantan

KLPD Kilolitres per day

L Lightness or luminance

LANUR Laboratório de Nutrição de Ruminantes

LC50 Lethal concentration 50 percent

LCA Life-cycle AnalysisLD50 Lethal Dose 50 [dose lethal to 50% of recipients]

LDH Lactic dehydrogenase

LED Light-emitting diode

Leu Leucine

LM Lime treated

LPC Lupin protein concentrate

LSD Least Significance Difference

LSF Liquefaction, saccharification and conventional fermentation

LUC Land use change

LW Live weightLWG Liveweight gain


16/552

xv

Lys Lysine

MARDI Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute

masl Metres above [mean] sea level

MDA Malondialdehyde

MDGS Modified distillers grain with solubles

ME Metabolizable energy

Met Methionine

MJ Megajoule

MP Metabolizable protein

MPS Milk protein score

MS Maize silage

MST Mercaptopyruvate sulphurtransferase

MUFA Mono-unsaturated fatty acids

MUN Milk urea nitrogen

MWDGS Modified wet distillers grain with solubles

N Nitrogen

N2O Nitrous oxide

Na+ Sodium ion

NADPH Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (reduced)

NAIP National Agricultural Innovation Project

NaOH Sodium hydroxide

NBB National Biodiesel Board

NDF Neutral-detergent fibre

NDS Neutral-detergent solubles

NE Net energy

NEg Net energy for gain

NEL Net energy for lactation

NG Natural gas

NL Narrow-leaf

NNP Non-protein nitrogen

NO Nitrous oxide

NPV Net Present Value

NRC National Research Council [USA]

NRCS National Research Centre on Sorghum [India]

NREAP National Renewable Energy Action PlanNSC Neem seed cake

NSKC Neem seed kernel cake

NSP Non-starch polysaccharide

NV Nutritive value

O2 Oxygen

OG Orchardgrass

OM Organic matter

OMD Organic matter digestibility

OPF Oil palm fronds

OPS Oil palm slurryOPT Oil palm trunks


17/552

xvi

P Phosphorus

Pb Plumbum [lead]

PCV Packed cell volume

PD Purine derivatives

PEM Polioencephalomalacia

PFAD Palm fatty acid distillates

Phe Phenylalanine

PJ Petajoule [1015 joules]

PKC Palm kernel cake

PKE Palm kernel expeller

PKM Palm kernel meal

PKO Palm kernel oil

POME Palm oil mill effluent

POS Palm oil sludge

PPC Potato protein concentrate

PPF Palm press fibre

Pro Proline

PUFA Polyunsaturated fatty acids

PV Peroxide value

RBC Red blood cell

RBD Refined Bleached De-odourized

RDP Rumen-degradable protein

RED Renewable Energy Directive [of the EU]

RFA Renewable Fuels Association

RFDGS Reduced-fat DDGS

RFS Renewable Fuel Standard

RHMC Rolled high-moisture maize

RIPs Ribosome-inactivating proteins

RISDA Rubber Industry Smallholders Development Authority

RSC Rapeseed cake

RSM Rapeseed meal

RUP Ruminally undegraded crude protein

RUSBI Rural Social Bio-refineries

S Sulphur

S= Sulphide ionSBE Spent bleaching earth

SBM Soybean meal

SD Standard deviation

SDO Sulphur dioxygenase

SE Solvent-extracted

SEDC State Economic Development Corporation

Ser Serine

SFA Short-chain fatty acids

SFC Steam-flaked maize

SG SwitchgrassSGOT Serum glutamate-oxaloacetate transaminase


18/552

xvii

SGPT Serum glutamate-pyruvate transaminase

SH Soybean hulls

SHF Simultaneous hydrolysis and fermentation

SID Standardized ileal digestibility

SKC Solvent-extracted karanj cake

SNF Solids not fat

SO2 Sulphur dioxide

SOC Soil organic carbon

SPC Soybean protein concentrate;

SPI Soy protein isolate

SQR Sulphide:quinone oxidoreductase

SQR-SSH SQR persulphide

SRC Short-rotation coppicing

SSB Sweet sorghum bagasse

SSF Solid state fermentation

T1 Treatment 1

T2 Treatment 2

TAB Treated alkali bagasse

TBARS Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances

TDF Total dietary fibre

TDN Total digestible nutrients

Thr Threonine

TJ Terajoule [1012 joules]

TME True metabolizable energy

TMP Total milk protein

TMR Totally mixed ration

toe Tonne oil equivalent

Trp Tryptophane

TS Total solids

TSS Total suspended solids

TVFA Total volatile fatty acids

Tyr Tyrosine

uCP Utilizable crude protein at the duodenum

UFPA Universidade Federal do Pará

UFRGS Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do SulUIP Undegradable intake protein

UMK Universiti Malaysia Kelantan

UMMB Urea molasses mineral blocks

UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization

UNSKC Urea-ammoniated neem seed kernel cake

UPM Universiti Putra Malaysia

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

Val Valine

VCA Value Chain AnalysisVFA Volatile fatty acid


19/552

xviii

WBP Wet beet pulp

WCGF Wet maize gluten feed

WDG Wet distillers grain

WDGS Wet distillers grain with solubles

WDGSH Wet distillers grain+soy hulls blend

WPC Whole-plant maize

WTW Well-to-wheels

WWNSKC Water-washed NSKC


20/552

1

INTRODUCTION – THE CASE FOR EXPANDINGBIOFUEL PRODUCTIONThe confluence of several economic, geopolitical and envi-

ronmental factors in recent years has stimulated increased

global interest in advancing the production and consump-

tion of liquid biofuels for transportation. Historically, interest

in biofuels has been primarily driven by national desires to

enhance energy security and reduce dependency on fossilfuels. Through stimulation of demand for agricultural com-

modities, biofuels have also been promoted as a means of

enhancing rural economic development and increasing farm

income. More recently, however, biofuels have been endorsed

as a key component of national and international strategies to

reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate poten-

tial climate change effects. As seen in Figure 1, these factors

have contributed to a significant increase in global biofuels

production in recent years, with world output growing nearly

five-fold between 2001 and 2009 (U.S. EIA, 2010).

Government policyIn an effort to decrease fossil fuel use, stimulate economic

development and reduce GHG emissions, many national

governments have enacted policies in recent years that

support increased domestic production and use of biofu-

els. For example, Brazil mandates the minimum level of

ethanol that must be blended with petrol. Brazil previous-

ly provided subsidies to ensure the price of ethanol was

below the price of petrol and required the nation’s largest

petroleum company to purchase increasing amounts of

ethanol (Hofstrand, 2009). Both Brazil and Argentina alsohave established programmes requiring that biodiesel be

blended into petroleum diesel at specified levels. In the

United States, Congress established a Renewable Fuel

Standard (RFS) in 2005 requiring that petroleum refiners

blend increasing volumes of renewable fuels, including

biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel. The RFS was modified

and expanded in the Energy Independence and Security

Act of 2007, requiring petroleum refiners to use 136 bil-

lion litres (36 billion gallons) of renewable fuels annually

by 2022. The United States also provides fuel excise tax

credits, which were scheduled to expire on 31 December

2011, to petrol and diesel fuel blenders who blend etha-

nol and biodiesel. In the European Union, various member

states have established mandates and provided fuel excise

Chapter 1

An outlook on world biofuel production and

its implications for the animal feed industryGeoff Cooper 1 and J. Alan Weber 21 Renewable Fuels Association, 16024 Manchester Road, Suite 223, Ellisville, Missouri 63011, United States of America2 Marc-IV Consulting, Inc., 3801 Bray Court, Columbia, Missouri 65203, United States of America

E-mail for correspondence: [email protected]

ABSTRACTMany countries have adopted policies that support expanded production and use of liquid biofuels for transporta-

tion. These policies are intended to enhance domestic energy security, spur economic development and reduce

emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and other pollutants. Biofuel policies, along with changing energy marketfundamentals, have contributed to a significant increase in global biofuel production in recent years. While con-

siderable research and development is under way to commercialize new types of biofuel and feedstocks, the two

primary biofuels produced globally today – ethanol and biodiesel – are predominantly derived from agricultural

commodities, such as grain, sugar and oilseeds. The use of certain feedstocks for biofuels production also results in

the co-production of animal feed. Globally, these animal feed co-products are growing in volume and importance.

The increased use of agricultural commodities for biofuels is generally expected to contribute to marginally higher

costs for certain livestock and poultry feeds, though the impacts are shown by the literature to be modest in nature

and there are offsetting effects. Increased substitution of co-products for traditional feedstuffs in feed rations helps

mitigate potential input cost increases faced by livestock and poultry producers. Further, increased agricultural

productivity and output has ensured that the global supply of crops available for non-biofuels uses has continued

to grow in the long term. Growth in the use of agricultural commodities for biofuels is expected to continue in the

next 10 years, but with growth rates slowing in key producing countries as government-imposed limits on grainuse for biofuels are reached and new non-agricultural feedstocks are commercialized.


21/552

Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challenges2

tax exemptions to encourage biofuels use. Additionally,

a 2003 European Commission (EC) directive called for

member states to ensure biofuels represented 2 per-

cent of petrol and diesel fuel consumption by 2005 and

5.75 percent by 2010. A 2009 EC directive established

that 10 percent of energy used for transportation in the

European Community by 2020 must derive from renew-

able sources, such as biofuels. Many other countries,

including Canada, China, India, Japan and South Africa,

have in recent years enacted blending requirements or

other policies supporting biofuels production and use

(Nylund et al ., 2008).

Energy market factorsWhile government policy has played an important role in

stimulating growth in global biofuels production and con-

sumption, demand for biofuels also has been accelerated

by global economic and energy market forces. Declining

FIGURE 1

2001–2009 global biofuels production by nation or region

Source: U.S. EIA, 2010

• Biofuels policies, along with changing energy mar-

ket fundamentals, have contributed to a significant

increase in global biofuel production in recent years.• The two primary biofuels produced globally today –

ethanol and biodiesel – are predominantly derived

from agricultural commodities, such as grain, sugar

and oilseeds.

• The increased use of agricultural commodities for bio-

fuel is generally expected to contribute to marginally

higher feed prices for livestock and poultry producers,

though the impacts are shown by the literature to be

modest in nature.

• Increased substitution of co-products for traditional

feedstuffs in feed rations helps mitigate potential

input cost increases faced by livestock and poultry

producers.

• Increased agricultural productivity and output hasensured that the global supply of crops available for

non-biofuel uses has continued to grow over the long

term.

• Growth in the use of agricultural commodities for

biofuel production is expected to continue in the next

10 years, but growth rates are expected to slow in key

producing countries as government-imposed limits

on grain use for biofuels are reached and new non-

agricultural feedstocks are commercialized.

MAIN MESSAGES

Argentina China

Europe

Brazil

United StatesCanadaRest of World

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

100 000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

T h o u s a n d L i t r e s


22/552

An outlook on world biofuel production and its implications for the animal feed industry 3

global crude oil productive capacity coupled with growing

demand, particularly in developing nations, has led to high-

er crude oil prices in recent years. As such, biofuels from

a variety of feedstocks have become more economically

competitive with petroleum-based fuels. Long-term energysupply and demand forecasts generally indicate sustained

increases in world crude oil prices (U.S. EIA, 2011), sug-

gesting improved economic competitiveness for biofuels. If

global crude oil prices remain at historically elevated levels,

and if feedstock prices decline from the weather-related

highs of 2010/2011, biofuel production in many countries

could exceed the volumes specified by national policies and

directives based purely on its economic competitiveness

with petroleum-based fuels (Hayes, 2008).

COMMON BIOFUELS, FEEDSTOCKS ANDCO-PRODUCTSTwo biofuels – ethanol (ethyl alcohol) and biodiesel from

fatty acid methyl esters – account for the vast majority of

global biofuel production and use today. These biofuels are

made today primarily from agricultural commodities, such

as grain and sugar (ethanol) and vegetable oil (biodiesel).

Significant research and development efforts are under way

to commercialize new biofuels (e.g. butanol) and new feed-

stocks (e.g. cellulosic agricultural residues, municipal solid

waste, algae, etc.) (Solomon, Barnes and Halvorsen, 2007).

However, these “next generation” feedstocks and biofuels

are unlikely to be produced in quantity in the short termaccording to most projections (U.S. EIA, 2011). Further, the

co-products from many of these new feedstocks are not

likely to have applications in the animal feed market, at

least initially. Thus, the primary focus of this paper is on cur-

rent ethanol and biodiesel feedstocks and the co-products

that result from common processing methods.

Ethanol feedstocks and processesEthanol is a petroleum petrol replacement produced today

mainly from grains and sugar cane. Other less common

feedstocks include sugar cane and beet molasses, sugarbeets, cassava, whey, potato and food or beverage waste.

In 2010, approximately 87 billion litres (23 billion gallons)

of ethanol were produced, with the United States, Brazil,

and the European Union accounting for 93% of this output

(RFA, 2011a).

Grains

Grains such as maize, wheat, barley and sorghum are com-

mon feedstocks for ethanol production, and to a lesser

extent are also rye, triticale, sorghum [milo] and oats. The

grain ethanol process is generally the same for all of these

grain feedstocks, though there are some slight differences

and the co-product characteristics vary somewhat depend-

ing on the grain used.

Two processes are primarily used to make ethanol from

grains: dry milling and wet milling. In the dry milling proc-

ess, the entire grain kernel typically is ground into flour (or

“meal”) and processed without separation of the various

nutritional component parts of the grain. The meal is slur-ried with water to form a “mash”. Enzymes are added to

the mash, which is then processed in a high-temperature

cooker, cooled and transferred to fermenters where yeast

is added and the conversion of sugar to ethanol begins.

After fermentation, the resulting “beer” is transferred to

distillation columns where the ethanol is separated from

the residual “stillage”.

The stillage is sent through a centrifuge that separates

the solids from the liquids. The l iquids, or solubles, are then

concentrated to a semi-solid state by evaporation, result-

ing in condensed distillers solubles (CDS) or “syrup”. CDSis sometimes sold direct into the animal feed market, but

more often the residual coarse grain solids and the CDS are

mixed together and dried to produce distillers dried grain

with solubles (DDGS). In the cases where the CDS is not

re-added to the residual grains, the grain solids product

is simply called distillers dried grain (DDG). If the distillers

grain is being fed to livestock in close proximity to the etha-

nol production facility, the drying step can be avoided and

the product is called wet distillers grain (WDG). Because

of various drying and syrup application practices, there are

several variants of distillers grain (one of which is called

modified wet distillers grain), but most product is marketedas DDGS, DDG or WDG.

Some dry-mill ethanol plants in the United States are

now removing crude maize oil from the CDS or stillage at

the back end of the process, using a centrifuge. The maize

oil is typically marketed as an individual feed ingredient or

sold as a feedstock for further processing (e.g. for biodiesel

production). The co-product resulting from this process is

colloquially known as “oil extracted” DDGS or “de-oiled”

DDGS. These co-products typically have lower fat content

than conventional DDGS, but slightly higher concentrations

of protein and other nutrients.A very small number of dry-mill plants also have the

capacity to fractionate the grain kernel at the front end

of the process, resulting in the production of germ, bran,

“high-protein DDGS” and other products (RFA, 2011b). In

some cases, ethanol producers are considering using the

cellulosic portions of the maize bran as a feedstock for

cellulosic ethanol. The majority of grain ethanol produced

around the world today comes from the dry milling process.

In the wet milling process, shelled maize is cleaned to

ensure it is free from dust and foreign matter. Next, the

maize is soaked in water, called “steepwater”, for between

20 and 30 hours. As the maize swells and softens, the

steepwater starts to loosen the gluten bonds with the

maize, and begins to release the starch. The maize goes on


23/552


to be milled. The steepwater is concentrated in an evapora-

tor to capture nutrients, which are used for animal feed and

fermentation. After steeping, the maize is coarsely milled

in cracking mills to separate the germ from the rest of the

components (including starch, fibre and gluten). Now in aform of slurry, the maize flows to the germ separators to

separate out the maize germ. The maize germ, which con-

tains about 85 percent of the maize’s oil, is removed from

the slurry and washed. It is then dried and sold for further

processing to recover the oil. The remaining slurry then

enters fine grinding. After the fine grinding, which releases

the starch and gluten from the fibre, the slurry flows over

fixed concave screens which catch the fiber but allow the

starch and gluten to pass through. The starch-gluten sus-

pension is sent to the starch separators. The collected fibre

is dried for use in animal feed.The starch-gluten suspension then passes through a

centrifuge where the gluten is spun out. The gluten is

dried and used in animal feed. The remaining starch can

then be processed in one of three ways: fermented into

ethanol, dried for modified maize starch, or processed into

maize syrup. Wet milling procedures for wheat and maize

are somewhat different. For wheat, the bran and germ are

generally removed by dry processing in a flour mill (leaving

wheat flour) before steeping in water.

In 2010, an estimated 142.5 million tonne of grain was

used globally for ethanol (F.O. Licht, 2011), representing

6.3 percent of global grain use on a gross basis (Figure 2).Because roughly one-third of the volume of grain proc-

essed for ethanol actually was used to produce animal

feed, it is appropriate to suggest that the equivalent of

95 million tonne of grain were used to produce fuel and

the remaining equivalent 47.5 million tonne entered the

feed market as co-products. Thus, ethanol production rep-

resented 4.2 percent of total global grain use in 2010/11

on a net basis. The United States was the global leader in

grain ethanol production, accounting for 88 percent of

total grain use for ethanol. The European Union accounted

for 6 percent of grain use for ethanol, followed by China(3.4 percent) and Canada (2.3 percent). The vast majority

of grain processed for ethanol by the United States was

maize, though grain sorghum represented a small share

(approximately 2 percent). Canada’s industry primarily used

wheat and maize for ethanol, while European producers

principally used wheat, but also processed some maize and

other coarse grains. Maize also accounted for the majority

of grain use for ethanol in China.

Sugar cane

Aside from grains, sugar cane is the other major ethanol

feedstock in wide use today, particularly in tropical or sub-

tropical regions. Sugar cane is typically processed by mills

that are capable of producing both raw sugar and ethanol.

In the sugar cane ethanol process, mills normally wash

incoming sugar cane stalks to remove soil and other debris.

Washing is followed by a process known as “breaking,” in

which cane stalks are crushed to expose sugar-rich fibres.These fibres are then mechanically pressed to extract sugars

and form sugar “juice”. At most facilities, the juice typically

is then divided into two streams: one stream for raw sugar

production and the other stream for ethanol fermenta-

tion. For the stream dedicated to ethanol production, sus-

pended materials are strained out of the juice, followed by

another refining step known as the “clarification” process.

The clarified sugar juice typically is then concentrated via

evaporation. Next, clarified and concentrated sugar juice is

fermented and distilled into alcohol.

The fibrous residue remaining after sugars are extractedis known as “bagasse”. Whereas the co-products of grain

ethanol are used primarily as animal feed, bagasse is used

predominantly as a fuel source to generate steam and elec-

tricity to operate the sugar mill. Some research has been con-

ducted on using bagasse as a feed ingredient for cattle, but

this is a rare application with limited commercial acceptance.

In 2010, more than 98 percent of the world’s sugar cane

ethanol output came from Brazil, while Colombia provided

1 percent. A total of 292.3 million tonne of sugar cane was

processed for ethanol in 2010 (F.O. Licht, 2011).

Sugar beet

Though far less common than grains or sugar cane, sugar

beet is occasionally used as an ethanol feedstock. The

FIGURE 2

2010 world feedstock usage for fuel ethanol(thousand tonne)

Notes: *Grain use reported on gross basis. Approximately one-third ofgrain for fuel ethanol produces animal feed co-products.Source: F.O. Licht, 2011

292 300

142 500

18 400

6 900 1 280

680

Sugar cane

Cane/beet molasses

Sugar beet

Fresh cassava

Other (whey,beverage waste, etc.)

Grains (gross)*


24/552


process and technology used to convert sugar beet into

ethanol is quite similar to the sugar cane ethanol process.

However, the fibrous component of the sugar beet that

remains after sugars are extracted (known as “beet pulp”)

is most often dried and marketed as an animal feedingredient. Currently, the use of sugar beet for ethanol

occurs mainly in the European Union. An estimated

6.9 million tonne of sugar beet was used for ethanol in

2010 ( F.O. Licht, 2011).

Sugar cane and beet molasses

Molasses is a by-product of raw sugar production from

sugar cane and beets. It contains minerals regarded as

impurities in the raw sugar, but also retains some fer-

mentable sugars. Molasses has generally been used as an

animal feed ingredient, but is also used as a feedstock forethanol production in facilities that have integrated sugar

and ethanol production capabilities. Fermentation of the

sugars found in molasses is conducted in a manner similar

to fermenting sugars from other feedstocks. An estimated

18.4 million tonne of molasses was processed into fuel eth-

anol in 2010, with Brazil representing 74 percent of total

use, followed by Thailand (7 percent) and India (5 percent)

(F.O. Licht, 2011).

Cassava

Cassava, also known as tapioca, is an annual crop that is

cultivated in tropical regions. The cassava root has rela-tively high starch content, making it a suitable feedstock for

ethanol fermentation. It is typically available in two forms

for ethanol production: fresh root (high moisture, available

seasonally) and dried chips (low moisture content, avail-

able throughout the year). When processing fresh root, the

feedstock is washed to remove soil and debris, followed

by peeling. The peeled root is then subjected to a process

known as rasping, which breaks down cell walls to release

starch granules. The starch is then steeped and separated

from the fibrous residue and concentrated. Next, the starch

is fed into the fermentation process, followed by distilla-tion and dehydration, similar to the process for grain-based

ethanol. The co-product of the cassava-to-ethanol process

is root fibre, which is used as a boiler fuel source, similar to

bagasse in the sugar cane ethanol process. Root fibre is not

currently used as animal feed.

In 2010, the equivalent of nearly 1.3 million dry tonne

of fresh cassava root was processed into ethanol. Thailand

was the leading producer (50 percent), followed by China

(44 percent) (F.O. Licht, 2011).

Small amounts of other feedstocks, such as cheese

whey, potato and beverage waste, were probably used

in 2010, but they are not discussed here because of their

insignificant volumes and hence impact on global feed

markets.

Biodiesel feedstocks and processesBiodiesel is a petroleum diesel fuel replacement produced

from renewable fats and oils sources such as vegetable oils,

animal fats and recycled cooking oils. Chemically, biodiesel

is a mono-alkyl ester of long chain fatty acids. It is producedfrom a diverse set of feedstocks, reflecting the natural fats

or oils indigenous to specific geographical regions. Thus,

European biodiesel producers rely upon rapeseed as a pri-

mary feedstock for biodiesel production. In Southeast Asia,

crude palm oil or its derivatives are the primary feedstocks

utilized. Meanwhile, in the United States, soybean oil is

the predominant feedstock, although a host of other feed-

stocks, such as animal fats, yellow grease, and vegetable oil

recovered from dry mill ethanol plants, contribute supplies

as well.

It is estimated that global production of biodiesel in2010 was 17.9 million tonnes (5.34 billion gallons) (Oil

World, 2011). Production is expected to increase 17 per-

cent in 2011 to 21 million tonne (6.3 billion gallons). The

European Union was the global leader in biodiesel produc-

tion in 2010, accounting for an estimated 52 percent of

production. Almost 80 percent of the anticipated produc-

tion in 2011 will be generated by the EU, United States,

Argentina and Brazil.

Oilseeds

Oilseeds such as rapeseed or canola and soybeans repre-

sent the most common source of vegetable oil feedstocksfor biodiesel production. The biodiesel production process

utilized for these feedstocks is similar. In 2010, an estimated

5.8 million tonne of rapeseed or canola oil and 5.7 million

tonne of soybean oil were used globally in the production

of biodiesel, representing 69 percent of the total feedstocks

used in global biodiesel production (Figure 3).

Palm

Globally, palm oil is an important vegetable oil source. A

unique feature of the palm tree is that it produces two

types of oil; crude palm oil from the flesh (mesocarp) of thefruit, and palm kernel oil from the seed or kernel. The crude

palm oil may be further refined to get a wide range of palm

products of specified quality. For example, palm oil may

be fractionated to obtain solid (stearin) and liquid (olein)

fractions with various melting characteristics. The different

properties of the fractions make them suitable for a variety

of food and non-food uses.

In 2010, an estimated 2.4 million tonne of palm oil

were used globally in the production of biodiesel (F.O. Licht,

2011), representing 15 percent of the total feedstocks used

in global biodiesel production. Indonesia, Thailand, the EU

and Colombia were the top users of palm oil for biodiesel

production in 2010. Together, they represented 78 percent

of global use of palm oil for biodiesel.


25/552


Animal fats and yellow grease

Animal fats are derived from the rendering process using

animal tissues as the raw material. The raw material is a

by-product of the processing of meat animals and poultry.The amount of fat produced is directly related to the species

of animal processed and the degree of further processing

that is associated with the marketing and distribution of

the meat product. Current markets for rendered animal fats

include use as feed ingredients for livestock, poultry, com-

panion animals and aquaculture. In addition, products such

as edible tallow are used for soap and fatty acid production.

Industry analysts anticipate that roughly 25 to 30 percent

of the rendered animal fat supplies could be diverted to

biodiesel production given current uses (Weber, 2009).

In 2010, an estimated 2.2 million tonne of animal fatsand yellow grease was used globally in the production of

biodiesel (F.O. Licht, 2011), representing 14 percent of the

total feedstocks used in global biodiesel production. EU

producers used 54 percent of animal fats and yellow grease

processed as biodiesel feedstock in 2010, followed by Brazil

(16 percent) and the United States (12 percent).

Maize oil from ethanol production processes

Grain ethanol production may offer the biodiesel industry

its nearest-term opportunity for a significant additive sup-

ply of plant oils for biodiesel production. Historically, maize

oil has not been a viable biodiesel feedstock due to its

relative high cost and high value as edible oil. However, as

discussed earlier, some dry-mill ethanol plants in the United

States are now removing crude maize oil from the stillage

at the back end of the process. The maize oil is typically

marketed as an individual feed ingredient or sold as a feed-

stock for further processing (e.g. for biodiesel production).

Maize oil could help to meet feedstock market demand intwo ways. First, edible maize oil could displace other edible

oils that could then be diverted to biodiesel production.

Second, non-edible maize oil could be used directly for

biodiesel production.

Biodiesel production processRegardless of the feedstock, most biodiesel globally is pro-

duced using one of three common manufacturing meth-

ods: reaction of the triglycerides with an alcohol, using a

base catalyst; reaction of the triglycerides with an alcohol,

using a strong acid catalyst; or conversion of the triglycer-ides to fatty acids, and a subsequent reaction of the fatty

acids with an alcohol using a strong acid catalyst.

In the United States and elsewhere, biodiesel is com-

monly produced using the base-catalyzed reaction of the

triglycerides with alcohol. Methanol is currently the main

alcohol used commercially for the production of biodiesel

due to its cost relative to other alcohols, shorter reaction

times compared with other alcohols, and the difficulty and

cost of recycling other alcohols.

Use of acid catalysis is typically limited to the conversion

of the fatty acid fraction in high free fatty acid feedstocks,

or to treat intermediate high fatty acid/ester streams thatcan form in the acidification of the crude glycerin bottoms

produced as a co-product of the transesterification reaction.

Stoichiometrically, 100 kg of triglycerides are reacted

with 10 kg of alcohol in the presence of a base catalyst

to produce 10 kg of glycerin and 100 kg of mono-alkyl

esters or biodiesel. In practice, an excess amount of alco-

hol is used in the reaction to assist in quick and complete

conversion of the triglycerides to the esters, and the excess

alcohol is later recovered for re-use. All reactants must be

essentially free from water. The catalyst is usually sodium

methoxide, sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide thathas already been mixed with the alcohol.

In some cases, the free fatty acid levels of the feed-

stock utilized are elevated to the point that an esterifica-

tion step, using an acid catalyst, is incorporated into the

biodiesel processing sequence. This stage involves mixing

the high fatty acid material with a solution of methanol

that contains an acid catalyst, typically sulphuric acid. The

contained fatty acids are then converted to methyl ester.

An excess of methanol and H2SO4 is employed to ensure

conversion, and after reaction completion this excess is

separated from the ester phase. The conversion of the fatty

acid to ester results in the formation of water, thus after

the reaction there is water in the methanol+sulphuric acid

mixture. Since this is an equilibrium reaction, the presence

FIGURE 3

2010 world feedstock usage for biodiesel(thousand tonnes)

Source: F.O. Licht, 2011

Rapeseed oil

Soybean oil

Palm oil

Animal fats & yellow grease

Sunflower oil

Other

5 750

5 700

2 440

2 230 211

161


26/552


of excessive amounts of water will adversely affect the con-

version of the fatty acid to ester. Thus, a portion (or all) of

the methanol+sulphuric acid mix is purged from the system

and treated to recover the methanol and reject the water.

A typical approach involves using this purge material as theacidifying agent for treating the glycerin material, followed

by recovery of the methanol. In this case, the water fraction

will end up in the glycerin phase.

Biodiesel co-productsThe main direct co-product of biodiesel production is

glycerine, which is a commonly used commercial name

for products whose principal component is glycerol. More

precisely, however, glycerine applies to purified commercial

products containing 95% or more of glycerol. Glycerine is a

versatile and valuable chemical substance with many appli-cations. A clear, odourless, viscous liquid with a sweet taste,

glycerine is derived from both natural and petrochemical

feedstocks. It occurs in combined form (triglycerides) in all

animal fats and vegetable oils and constitutes about 10 per-

cent of these materials on average. Importantly, glycerine

can also be utilized as a feed ingredient for livestock rations.

Increased production of biodiesel has led to renewed evalu-

ation of glycerine from biodiesel operations as a liquid feed

ingredient for livestock.

In the conventional glycerine refining processes, the

crude glycerine solution is initially treated with additional

chemicals to remove any dissolved fatty acids or soaps, andto prepare the solution for the next stage of processing.

The concentrated glycerine is then processed in a higher

temperature, high vacuum distillation unit. The condensed

glycerine solution is further treated to remove traces of

residual fatty acids, esters or other organics that may impart

colour, odour or taste to the glycerine. Typical methods for

this “post-treatment” step may include activated clay addi-

tion and filtration, similar to that used in the treatment of

vegetable oils for edible uses; powdered activated carbon

addition, followed by filtration; and/or treatment in acti-

vated carbon columns, commonly used for trace organicsremoval from a range of industrial and food chemicals.

In the processing of biodiesel crude glycerine, issues

typically associated with conventional crude processes, e.g.

char materials, crystallized salts, etc., can be magnified, due

to the higher starting impurity content. Thus, for a refin-

ery that would process biodiesel crude only, or as a high

percentage of its input, a more sophisticated processing

approach may be required.

Another co-product of the biodiesel production process

is fatty acids, which are derived from a variety of fats and

oils, and are used directly (unreacted) or for the manufac-

ture of derivatives. Fatty acids are used directly in a number

of products such as candles, cosmetics and toiletries, animal

feeds, lubricants and asphalt.

Vegetable oil meal represents a very important indirect

co-product of biodiesel production. Oilseed crops that are

crushed, either in a mechanical expelling or solvent extrac-

tion operation, will generate both crude vegetable oil and

oilseed meal. Oilseed meals are an integral componentof livestock rations as a source of protein and key amino

acids. Although soybean oil is the most valuable part of the

seed on a per weight basis, only 20 percent of the seed by

weight is vegetable oil. The remaining 80 percent of the

seed (the portion left after extracting the oil) is referred to

as “meal”. The value of oilseed meal in the animal feed

market has historically been the primary economic driver

of oilseed crushing, rather than the value of the oil. In

other words, oilseed meal for livestock feed is the primary

co-product of oilseed crushing, while vegetable oil is the

secondary co-product. Thus, oilseed meal would be pro-duced for feed regardless of the uses and demand for the

oil. Accordingly, oilseed meal is not considered a direct co-

product of biodiesel production.

GENERALLY ACCEPTED USES OF FEEDCO-PRODUCTS IN ANIMAL DIETSBiofuel co-products are used broadly today as feed ingre-

dients in the diets for livestock, poultry and fish. These co-

products often substitute for higher priced feeds in animal

rations. For example, in recent years, DDGS has sold at a

significant discount to maize and soybean meal, which are

the ingredients it primarily substitutes for in animal diets(Hoffman and Baker, 2010). Ruminant animals, such as

beef cattle and dairy cows, have been the main consum-

ers of ethanol and biodiesel co-product feeds historically.

However, the use of feed co-products in rations for non-

ruminant animals, such as hogs and broilers, has been

growing in recent years.

Numerous studies have examined the use of bio-

fuel co-products in animal feed rations and identified

key considerations for different animal species (Shurson

and Spiehs, 2002; Anderson et al ., 2006; Whitney et al .,

2006; Daley, 2007; Klopfenstein, Erickson and Bremer,2008; Schingoethe, 2008; Stein, 2008; Bregendahl, 2008;

Walker, Jenkins and Klopfenstein, 2011). The amount of

co-products that can be introduced into animal feed rations

depends on the nutritional characteristics of the individual

ingredient and unique limiting factors for the various spe-

cies being fed.

Other papers have examined the mass of traditional

feedstuffs displaced from typical animal feed rations by a

given mass of biofuel co-products, such as distillers grain.

Some of these papers show that due to the concentration

of certain nutritional components, a given mass of distill-

ers grains can displace more than the equivalent mass of

maize and soybean meal in some animal rations. Arora,

Wu and Wang (2008), for example, found that 1kg of


27/552


distillers grain can displace 1.2 kg of maize in a typical

beef ration. Hoffman and Baker (2011) found that “…in

aggregate (including major types of livestock/poultry), a

metric ton of DDGS can replace, on average, 1.22 metric

tons of feed consisting of maize and soybean meal in theUnited States.”

In general, studies show that distillers grains can

account for approximately 30 to 40 percent in beef cattle

rations, although higher rates can be used (Vander Pol et

al ., 2006). Animal feeding studies generally indicate effec-

tive distillers grain inclusion rates of 20 to 25 percent for

dairy cows, 20 percent for farrow-to-finish hogs, and 10

to 15 percent for the grow-finish stages of poultry feeding.

Gluten feed from wet mills is typically fed to beef cattle at

an inclusion rate of 30 to 50 percent of the ration, while

gluten meal is fed at much lower levels to both ruminantand non-ruminant animals. Gluten meal is also a common

ingredient in pet food products. Pressed or shredded beet

pulp is typically fed to ruminant animals at no more than 15

to 20 percent of the diet. Glycerine from the biodiesel proc-

ess can be added to beef and dairy diets at low levels, typi-

cally representing no more than 10 percent of the ration.

Research is also under way to determine appropriate levels

of glycerine inclusion in swine and poultry rations (Flores

and Perry, 2009).

HISTORICAL VOLUMES OF FEED FROM BIOFUEL

CO-PRODUCTSCurrently, there are no regular or comprehensive efforts to

collect and report data on biofuel feed co-product produc-

tion volumes. However, several studies have approximated

co-product output volumes, based on generally accepted

conversion factors per tonne of feedstock and government

estimates of feedstock use for biofuel production (Hoffman

and Baker, 2010). As a general rule of thumb, a tonne ofgrain processed by an ethanol biorefinery will generate

approximately one-third of a tonne of feed co-products.

Thus, global grain ethanol co-product production can be

estimated (Figure 4) by applying this simple conversion to

estimates of total feedstock use, as provided by F.O. Licht

(2011).

As most of the world’s grain ethanol output comes from

the United States, most of the world’s DDGS and other feed

co-products also originate in the United States. In recent

years, as much as 25 percent of U.S. feed co-product out-

put has been exported.The amount of crude glycerine generated by the biodie-

sel industry is directly proportional to overall biodiesel pro-

duction. Generally about 10 percent, by weight, of the lipid

source will be glycerine. In reality, approximately 0.4 kg of

glycerine are produced per litre of biodiesel production. An

economic analysis prepared by IHS Global Insight suggests

expected biodiesel feedstock supplies in the United States

could support 9.5 billion litres of biodiesel by 2015 (IHS

Global Insight, 2011).

With increased production of biodiesel and a result-

ant increase in crude glycerine supplies, it is likely that

expanded feed applications will continue to be pursued.A 2010 survey of National Biodiesel Board (NBB) member

companies reported that 48 percent of NBB members sold

FIGURE 4

Global production of grain ethanol animal feed co-products

Source: RFA calculation based on F.O. Licht, 2011

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

40 000

45 000

50 000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

T h o u s a n d T o n n e s


28/552


their glycerine output to refiners to be processed for high-

value uses, 33 percent marketed glycerine to be used for

livestock feed, 4 percent sold the co-product as fuel, and

the remaining survey respondents either did not specify a

use or listed a minor use.

Impacts on global livestock and poultry marketsNumerous studies have examined the potential impacts of

increased biofuels production on animal feed supplies and

prices, as well as the production levels and prices of meat,

milk, eggs and other agricultural products (Taheripour, Hertel

and Tyner, 2010a, b; Elobeid et al ., 2006; Banse et al ., 2007;

Birur, Hertel and Tyner, 2007; Westcott, 2007; USDA, 2007).

Many of these studies have employed computable general

equilibrium (CGE) or partial equilibrium economic models to

estimate the potential long-term impacts of biofuel policies.While most of these studies suggest that large-scale bio-

fuel production results in higher long-term prices for certain

agricultural commodities (thus increasing input costs for

the livestock and poultry industries), the magnitude of the

impacts is generally modest. For example, in its analysis of

the impacts of the United States’ Renewable Fuel Standard

(RFS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2010)

found that full implementation of the programme’s biofuel

consumption mandates might result in price increases of

just 0.8% for soybeans, 1.5% for soybean oil and 3.1%

for maize by 2022 over a baseline scenario with no biofuels

mandate. Similarly, one recent study indicated that, from2005 to 2009, prices for rice, wheat, soybean and maize

would have been only marginally lower (-0.2, -1.3, -1.7 and

-3.3 percent on average, respectively) if U.S. ethanol policies

had not existed (Babcock, 2011).

Most of these studies indicate that the production and

consumption of meat, milk, eggs and other agricultural

goods may be slightly reduced due to higher feed input

costs induced by biofuels expansion, but again, the impacts

are found to be small. For example, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency found that full implementation of the

RFS biofuel consumption mandates could be expected toresult in just a 0.05% reduction in consumption of livestock

products and 0.03% reduction in consumption of dairy

products by 2022 (EPA, 2010). In an analysis of the agricul-

ture market impacts of achieving the 2015 RFS mandate for

conventional (maize starch) biofuels, the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) found no change in U.S. chicken

output, an average -0.2% reduction in milk output and

an average -0.3% reduction in pork output over baseline

values between 2007 and 2016 (USDA, 2007). Beef output

actually increased an average of 0.1% in the USDA analy-

sis, as beef cattle production was assumed to benefit from

increased production of distillers grain.

While the results of these economic analyses are instruc-

tive, many of the studies have failed to properly incorporate

the recent economic impacts of increased consumption

of biofuels co-products by the livestock and poultry sec-

tor (Taheripour, Hertel and Tyner, 2010b). In recent years,

prices for biofuel feed co-products have generally declined

relative to competing feedstuffs, which is not accuratelyaccounted for in most economic modelling studies exam-

ining adjustments by the livestock and poultry sectors in

response to increased biofuel production. Recent pricing

patterns indicate that biofuel co-products can help the

livestock and poultry industry offset minor cost increases for

traditional feedstuffs that might result from expanded bio-

fuel demand. Many of the economic modelling studies dis-

cussed here were conducted prior to the establishment of

sustained price discounts for key biofuel feed co-products

relative to traditional feedstuffs.

Recognizing this shortcoming in previous modellingefforts, Taheripour, Hertel and Tyner (2010a) introduced

an improved co-product substitution methodology to the

Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model, a popular CGE

model used by government agencies and other entities in

the U.S., EU, and Brazil. Based on the improved methodol-

ogy and updated modelling results, Taheripour, Hertel and

Tyner (2010b) concluded that “In general, the livestock

industries of the US and EU do not suffer significantly from

biofuel mandates, because they make use of the biofuel

byproducts to eliminate the cost consequences of higher

crop prices”. The study further found that “…while biofuel

mandates have important consequences for the livestockindustry, they do not harshly curtail these industries. This is

largely due to the important role of by-products in substi-

tuting for higher priced feedstuffs”.

While Taheripour, Hertel and Tyner (2010a) repre-

sented an advancement in the analysis of the impact of

expanded biofuels production on livestock, it did not take

into account the ability of DDGS to displace more than an

equivalent mass of maize and soybean meal, as document-

ed by Arora, Wu and Wang (2008) and Hoffman and Baker

(2011). Nor did the Taheripour study account for likely

continued improvements in the feed conversion efficiencyof livestock and poultry.

Specifically pertaining to biodiesel production, research

has been conducted to evaluate the impact of increased

biodiesel production from oilseeds on the livestock sector

(Centrec, 2011). Utilizing a partial equilibrium model called

the Value Chain Analysis (VCA) developed for the United

Soybean Board, the impacts of single soybean oil supply

or demand factors were examined in isolation from other

factors. A decrease in soybean oil demand for biodiesel

was isolated and analysed. The analysis found that reduced

demand for soybean oil for United States biodiesel pro-

duction would result in lower soybean oil prices, reduced

soybean production and significantly higher soybean meal

prices. Thus, the analysis showed that increased demand


29/552


for vegetable oil for biodiesel results in larger supplies of

oilseed meal for livestock feed and, in turn, lower prices.

The results of the Centrec work were confirmed in

2011 in an economic analysis conducted by IHS Global

Insight (2011) that analysed United States and internationalfeedstock supplies, projected petroleum pricing, edible oil

demand, and energy policy to estimate potential biodiesel

industry growth in the United States. Potential acreage

shifts, commodity price impacts, and global trade effects

were also examined. The analysis demonstrated a sig-nificant decrease in soybean meal values due to increased

oilseed production.

Aside from the effect of substituting relatively lower-

cost feed co-products from biofuels production for tradi-

tional feedstuffs, the modest impacts of expanded biofuels

production on the livestock sector can be partially explainedby steadily increasing supplies of food and feed crops. That

is, the global grain and oilseed supply has grown sub-

stantially in recent years, such that increased use of these

commodities for biofuels production has not led to reduced

availability for feed or feed use.

As an example, the global grain supply (wheat, rice,

maize, sorghum, barley, oats, rye, millet and mixed grains)

totalled 2 423 million tonne in 2005/06. Grain use for

ethanol and co-product production was 54 million tonne

on a gross basis in 2005/06 (F.O. Licht, 2011), meaning

2 369 million tonne of grain remained available for uses

other than ethanol and feed co-products. By comparison,the global grain supply was a record 2 686 million tonne

in 2009/10. Grain use for ethanol and co-products totalled

143 million tonne in 2009/10, meaning 2 543 million tonne

of grain were available for non-ethanol uses. Thus, the

supply of grain available for non-ethanol uses (i.e. grain

remaining after accounting for grain use for ethanol) grew

7 percent between 2005/06 and 2009/10. Further, the

supply of grain ethanol feed co-products grew 268 per-

cent during this period. The combined supply of grain for

non-ethanol use and ethanol feed co-products totalled

2 586 million tonne in 2009/10, compared with 2 386 mil-lion tonne in 2005/06. Figure 5 shows recent growth in the

global grain supply relative to grain use for ethanol and

feed co-product production.

The amount of grain available for uses other than etha-

nol production is expected to grow more significantly in the

long term, as grain use for ethanol moderates in accord-

ance with slowing national mandates.

BIOFUELS AND CO-PRODUCT OUTLOOK TO2020Market factors and government policies are expected to

continue to support expanded biofuels production and

use in the long term. Growth in grain and oilseed use

for biofuels is expected to be maintained or accelerated

in some nations or blocs throughout the decade. In the

EU, for instance, USDA (2011) projects biodiesel produc-

tion will increase 22 percent and ethanol production will

increase more than 40 percent by 2020 in response to bio-

fuels blending mandates. Further, USDA projects Brazilian

ethanol production will increase 45 percent by 2020, largely

because of stronger expected export demand. Ethanol and

biodiesel production increases from traditional feedstocksare also projected in Canada and Argentina.

However, growth in the use of certain agricultural com-

modities as biofuels feedstocks is expected to moderate

in the next 10 years in some other nations. For example,

USDA projects maize use for ethanol in the United States

will be 128 million tonne in 2011/12, but will grow only

gradually (1 percent per year) to 140 million tonne by

2020/21 (USDA, 2011). There are two major reasons for the

expected slower rate of growth in the use of agricultural

feedstocks for biofuels in the United States and some other

nations. First, government policies in several nations placerestrictions on the amount of agricultural commodities that

may be used for biofuels. For example, the United States’

RFS caps the amount of maize starch ethanol that can

qualify for the mandate at a maximum of 57 billion litres

(15 billion gallons) per year beginning in 2015. Similarly,

China recently imposed regulations to limit grain ethanol

production to current levels, effectively restricting any

further growth in grain use for ethanol (USDA, 2011). The

second reason for moderation in the growth in the use of

agricultural commodities for biofuels is the expectation that

future growth in biofuels production will primarily come

from new feedstocks that currently have no or limited appli-

cation in the animal feed market, such as perennial grasses

(switch grass, miscanthus), agricultural residues (maize

FIGURE 5

Global grain supply in relation to grain use for ethanoland animal feed co-product production

Source: USDA data; F.O. Licht, 2011

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11

M i l l i o n T o n n e s

Grain Use for Ethanol, Net Co-product Production

Global Grain Supply Availab

Documents

BIODOSEL PROIZVODNJA