 |
    |
|
|
 |  |  |
There's no definitive answer to what the influence of biofuel production will be on concentrate animal feeding in the US - it's a complex question and there's a whole matrix of 'players' to consider.
"There's conflict too - between 'food' and 'energy' in agriculture," John Comerford from Penn State University told delegates at this year's British Society of Animal Science annual conference. "And there are forces at play that will hinder the ability to be profitable in some meat production sectors, but we still don't know which."
Corn production currently drives US agriculture but, since the US government's decree that 30 billion gallons of biofuel will replace fossil fuel by 2020, could soon change. And it's set to cost the US food industry $100 million by 2010, according to Dr Comerford.
"Once again our country's leader has jumped on a train even though he doesn't know where it's going - and he's bought a ticket for us all."
The US doesn't have the capacity to produce that much bio fuel as yet and is woefully short of reaching it. Even if all the capacity was used, just 12.3% of current fossil and 5% of diesel use could be met.
The cost of constructing ethanol plants, coupled with the high price of corn, is preventing further development within the sector.
"And the energy required to make that bio fuel hasn't been factored in either - it actually equates to a 65% energy loss," said Dr Comerford. Around 60% of the corn currently grown in the US is used for livestock feed - roughly 31% for beef production, 27% for poultry, 24% for pork and 15% dairy. And despite a record crop in 2007, the price of corn has doubled - from $2.77 to $5.27 per bushel. For a 50,000 head cattle lot, consuming 425 tonnes of corn per day, that equates to an increase in feeding costs of $38,000.
"I see two possible outcomes. Either the price of fossil fuel will fall to a more economic level, which I doubt. Or food, corn and animal feed prices will all continue to increase, which will drive down farm incomes and meat production levels," Dr Comerford added.
Co-products from the biofuel industry have the potential to be important feed sources for the pig and poultry industries. And new technologies promise to add value to this feed material in the future. That was the good news presented to delegates at this year's British Society of Animal Science annual conference by ABN's Steve Jagger and the SAC's Tom Acamovic.
"In certain areas, obtaining further knowledge of how to improve the production process, rapidly measure the nutrient availability and use new technology to improve the nutrient value would increase utilisation and add value to the co-product produced," said Dr Jagger, adding that variability in nutrient value was a particularly pressing issue.
"Old ethanol producing plants didn't take a lot of notice of the nutritional value of the distillers' grains they produced. But the new generation of plants are producing a more consistent co-product, have better drying facilities and are more interested in the nutritional value of the product," added Dr Acamovic.
That said, there are three different processes to produce ethanol from wheat, for example, and the resulting end co-product analyses are also very different.
"Distillers' grains are not all the same - I can't stress that enough. There is still a lot of variability and the processing plants need to get a handle on that," said Dr Acamovic.
Of the 37 samples he analysed, there was huge nutritional variation: "And from a nutritional point of view this is not good and certainly not conducive to the precise ration formulation required by poultry producers.
"If we could solve this variability problem then co-products could make up to 20% of broiler rations."
Dr Jagger agreed that the main concern with the use of dried distillers' grains with solubles (DDGS) in pig feeds was the degree of variation in composition and digestibility of nutrients. "This variation arises from differences in nutrient analysis of the incoming raw material, the amount of condensed distillers' solubles added to the dried distillers' grains, the quantity of starch converted to ethanol by the fermentation process and the temperature and duration of the drying process," he explained.
The heating process reduced the availability of amino acids and this will reduced growth rates unless the inclusion level of DDGS is reduced or the amino acid availability is accurately assessed and accounted for," he added.
Maize DDGS has been used successfully at levels of up to 15% in finishing pig diets: "But soft carcase fat may be an issue due to the level of polyunsaturated fatty acids in the diet," said Dr Jagger.
Wheat DDGS has been used up to a level of 10% in finishing pigs diets, but reduced feed intake has been seen above this level.
"The use of enzymes may offer a means of increasing the utilisation of DDGS, but further investigation appears to be necessary to determine the type and level of enzyme required.
"To fully exploit the economic and nutritional value of DDGS in diets for pigs, either a rapid method of accurately assessing the nutrient availability is required or processes, which minimise heat damage, should be adopted to ensure the production of a consistent material," concluded Dr Jagger.
“In five or 10 years, grain will not being something that we feed to ruminants.” That was the bold statement made by AB Agri’s Michael Marsden in front of delegates attending this year’s British Society of Animal Science annual conference.
“In the past we have ‘thrown’ grain at the rumen, but we are going to have to learn how to feed the rumen and use ‘novel’ products efficiently,” he added.
‘Novel’ or new products are Dr Marsden’s preferred names for co-products – he says the term is now outdated as no factory will ever be constructed without some recognition being given to the valuable contribution of all its products.
“And we need to exploit these products in light of high grain costs – they offer many opportunities. By 2010 the predicted supply of dried distillers’ grains with solubles (DDGS) in the EU will be around six millions tonnes – about 0.8 million tonnes of which will be produced in the UK from wheat.”
He says that the main limitation for their use will be their variation in nutritional quality – the result of variable raw material, the quantity of chemicals removed and added during processing, and the process used.
“And, clearly, accurate feed material description will be fundamental to utilising the full nutritional value of the new and novel products being produced by biofuel plants,” he said.
“We know that bio-ethanol ‘products’ will provide ruminant animals with huge quantities of valuable protein. And glycerol – a product of bio-diesel production from oil seeds – is energy rich and has the potential to be a significant part of ruminant rations.
“Rapeseed meal also has more potential as a feed. Its volume in the EU is set to increase and, with a self sufficiency for soya of just 2.5%, there is a growing need to improve the nutritional value of rapeseed by removing some of the anti-nutrient factors, such as tannins,” he added.
“This may become more economically viable as the differential between rape and soya meal increases.”
Presented to the British Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting, March 31 to April 2, 2008, Scarborough, UK.
There are a whole range of strategies that will help to reduce methane emissions from livestock and these provide scientists and livestock farmers with both a challenge and an opportunity.
That was the good news presented to delegates attending this year’s British Society of Animal Science annual conference by Jamie Newbold, Aberystwyth University.
“There’s plenty of technology that we can develop and apply on farm that will not only reduce methane emissions, but will also increase livestock productivity,” he said, adding that methane emissions represent a 10% loss of energy from the animal.
“Reducing emissions allows us to retain some of that energy and, therefore, boost production efficiency.”
Looking at rumen function to reduce emissions was one key option as rumen bugs excrete hydrogen and this combines with CO2 to produce methane.
Dietary supplements can be added to inhibit methanogenesis: “But the rumen bugs can quickly adapt to chemical additives so we’re looking at those with longer term effects,” said Professor Newbold.
He added that plant extracts, such as allicin derived from garlic, can dramatically reduce methane production. “Allicin actively inhibits methane producing bacteria in the gut. And Chinese rhubarb has a similar effect.
“Either extract, and others being currently being investigated, offer livestock producers with a real opportunity to keep energy in the rumen and, therefore, in the animal.”
Other rumen ‘approaches’ include vaccinating the rumen against methanogenic bacteria. Trials are on-going in Australia and although the technique does reduce methane emissions it’s not very effective at the moment. “There’s hope that the technology and the results will improve with more development,” Professor Newbold told delegates.
Since hydrogen plays a key role on methane production, other methods have looked at limiting hydrogen production in the rumen, by removing protozoa, or capturing hydrogen, by feeding organic acids that lock up the element. Again trials have shown a significant reduction in methane production in both instances, but more research is needed.
“And we also have to look into the net benefit of some of the methods of reducing methane emissions as some, themselves, would result in additional CO2 emissions and could also have a huge economic cost.
“If we took the allicin option, for example, there wouldn’t be any cows to feed it to as we’d need all the land they graze to grow garlic,” added Professor Newbold.
“Other techniques such as weaning lambs on concentrate feed, which has shown potential in trials to reduce the rumen population of methane producing bacteria in sheep, would be preferable in this instance.
“There’s also a real possibility that genetic selection for reduce methane production could be an option in the future.”
Presented to the British Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting, March 31 to April 2, 2008, Scarborough, UK.
Full details: CJ Newbold: “Redressing the balance: ‘less belching cows’.”
Scientists and farmers need to ask themselves two questions when considering the possible impact of climate change on current UK livestock production systems – do systems need to be more ‘sustainable’ and should we be doing more to prepare for the future?
That was the advice that Peter Rowlinson, of Newcastle University, offered delegates at this year’s British Society of Animal Science annual conference during his presentation about adapting livestock management systems to climate change.
Climate change in the UK will manifest as greater weather variability, with an increase in temperatures and a reduction in rainfall, if the experts are to be believed.
“So what do these changes mean for our livestock production systems?” asked Dr Rowlinson. “And what will be their direct and indirect impact?”
For ruminants, which have a high degree of ‘thermal tolerance’ compared to the pigs and poultry, the direct impact is expected to be minimal apart from where there is ‘extreme’ weather.
“There is some good news – warmer springs may see reduced lamb mortality rates. But for some dairy herds, thermal stress may become an issue and more shelter and water may be required on some units. In more extreme cases, herds may need to be housed in cooled and ventilated accommodation during the summer,” he said.
“High temperatures that result in heat stress could reduce cow longevity, as well as dry matter intakes and productivity.”
The indirect impact of climate change is expected to be greater. “The escalating feed:fuel conflict could result in a feed supply shortage, as well as highlighting the issue of ‘feed miles’ too,” says Dr Rowlinson.
“Diseases, like bluetongue, could also become more prevalent as temperatures increase and this will have a serious negative impact on the UK’s livestock population.
“On the plus side, conditions could be more favourable for forage conservation. Early season grass growth, due to increased spring temperatures and rainfall, may result in top quality forages being produced and there should also be plenty of it.
“These are just some of the immediate factors that we need to look at. We also need to concentrate on management approaches and genetic improvement programmes. More production from fewer animals will not only be more efficient, it will also result in reduced green house gas emissions,” he added.
Presented to the British Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting, March 31 to April 2, 2008, Scarborough, UK.
Full details: Rowlinson and Wall E: “Adapting livestock management, feeding and breeding systems to climate change.”
Animal scientists have a key role to play in providing robust and objective data concerning the impact on livestock production and agriculture on climate change. That was the key message from the University of Aberdeen’s Maggie Gill, who is also the chief scientific adviser to SEERAD, when she spoke to delegates at this year’s British Society of Animal Science annual conference.
“At the moment many figures used by politicians and other organisations are mere estimates. Yet these figures are seized upon and many important decisions are being based upon them,” she said.
“Some decisions are political, but they are also evidence based and it is vital that this ‘evidence’ is accurate.”
Professor Gill told delegates that there was no bigger threat to our civilisation than climate change. “To counter this threat, climate change bills in the UK propose a 60% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions by 2050. And Scotland has set an even greater target of 80%.
“But one problem is that it’s tricky to calculate exact carbon footprints, particularly in relation to food production.”
She said that some animal scientists were involved: ‘but not enough’.
“And there are too many telling us to grow more crops and move away from ruminant the production. There are not enough looking at the wider picture, which also involves the growing issue of food security.”
Professor Gill added that there was a strong need for more livestock science in many of the reports being produced. “Livestock are not the ‘sinners’ and it’s up to us to put this point across.
“We need to be taking a more strategic view to provide the Government with the figures and information that it needs. We have to be doing the ‘feeding’ to ensure that the data is accurate.”
She said that there were exciting opportunities for scientists and livestock producers. “At the moment livestock production has a negative profile as far as both food security and climate change are concerned, but we have to highlight the wider environmental context. For example, there’s a lot of carbon locked up in grassland. To prevent this from having an environmental impact, it needs to stay there so this land must be grazed.
“Scientists must demonstrate what a huge contribution our livestock producers are already making to protect the environment – it’s not all about meat production.
“And lots of scientists working together will ensure that the figures, which are fiendishly difficult to calculate, will be both robust and objective.”
Presented to the British Society of Animal Science Annual Meeting, March 31 to April 2, 2008, Scarborough, UK.