Looking for opportunities from second generation bio-fuel technologies to upgrade lignocellulosic biomass for livestock feed
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Looking for opportunities from second generation bio-fuel technologies to upgrade lignocellulosic biomass for livestock feed

on

  • 223 views

Presented by Michael Blümmel, ILRI, at the Global Animal Nutrition Conference, Bengalaru, India 20-22 April 2014

Presented by Michael Blümmel, ILRI, at the Global Animal Nutrition Conference, Bengalaru, India 20-22 April 2014



Statistics

Views

Total Views
223
Views on SlideShare
223
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Looking for opportunities from second generation bio-fuel technologies to upgrade lignocellulosic biomass for livestock feed Looking for opportunities from second generation bio-fuel technologies to upgrade lignocellulosic biomass for livestock feed Presentation Transcript

  • 1 Looking for opportunities from second generation bio-fuel technologies to upgrade lignocellulosic biomass for livestock feed Michael Blümmel International Livestock Research Institute Global Animal Nutrition Conference Bengalaru, India 20-22 April 2014
  • Topics Part 1  Importance of lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) as a global natural resource  Importance of LCB as livestock feed resources  What differences in LCB fodder traits matter and why
  • 3 Why invest in lignocellulosic biomass (LCB)  Most abundant renewable biomass on earth  Total annual production of about 10-50 billion metric tons (Sanchez and Cardena 2008)  About 4 billion tons consist of crop residues, the direct and widely available byproduct of crop production (Lal 2005)  High nutritive value of basic constituents of LCB
  • 4 Key feed sources in India: 2003 and 2020 Feed Resource % Crop Residues Planted fodder crops 2003 2020 44.2 69.0 34.1 ? Greens (F/F/CPR/WL) 17.8 <10 Concentrates 3.9 7.3 (summarized from NIANP, 2005 and Ramachandra et al., 2007)
  • 5 Sorghum stover trading in Hyderabad
  • 6 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Sorghum grain Sorghum stover 3.4 6.5 Month of trading IndianRupeeperkg Yearly mean 2004 to 2005 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Sorghum stover Sorghum grain 6.2 10.2 Yearly mean 2008 to 2009 Month of trading Comparisions of average cost of dry sorghum stover traded in Hyderabad and average of cost of sorghum grain in Andhra Pradesh 2005 to 2005 and 2008 to 2009 Changes in grain: stover value in sorghum traded in Hyderabad from 2004 to 2009
  • 7 Type and cost of sorghum stover traded monthly 2004-2005 in Hyderabad, India Stover type Price IR / kg DM Andhra 3.52b Andhra Hybrid 3.15cd Ballary Hybrid 3.54b Raichur 3.89a Rayalaseema 3.23c Telangana (Local Y) 3.06d Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006
  • Relation between digestibility and price of sorghum stover 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 y = -4.9 + 0.17x; R2 = 0.75; P = 0.03 Stover in vitro digestibility (%) Stoverprice(IR/kgDM) Premium Stover “Raichur” Low Cost Stover “Local Yellow” Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006
  • Feed block manufacturing: supplementation, densification Ingredients % Sorghum stover 50 Bran/husks/hulls 18 Oilcakes 18 Molasses 8 Grains 4 Minerals, vitamins, urea 2 Courtesy: Miracle Fodder and Feeds PVT LTD
  • Comparisons of higher and lower quality sorghum stover based complete feed blocks in dairy buffalo Block High (52% dig) Block Low (47% dig) CP 17.2 % 17.1% ME (MJ/kg) 8.46 MJ/kg 7.37 MJ/kg DMI 19.7 kg/d 18.0 kg/d DMI per kg LW 3.6 % 3.3 % Milk Potential 16.6 kg/d 11.8 kg/d Anandan et al. (2009a)
  • Cultivar Treatment IVOMD (%) DMI (kg/d) Gain (g/d) Gerbel U 27.6 3.43 106 Gerbel As 37.8 4.70 359 Igri U 29.5 3.56 126 Igri As 37.5 4.82 332 Corgi U 39.0 5.16 400 Corgi A 54.1 5.86 608 Golden Promise U 36.4 4.43 198 Golden Promise A 45.6 4.93 602 Norman U 31.7 4.57 237 Norman A 44.8 5.81 516 Mean U 32.8 4.23 213 Mean A 44.0 5.22 483 ∆ A/U 34% 23% 227% Comparisons of untreated (U) and ammonia treated barley, wheat and oat straw in in vitro digestibility (IVOMD) and dry matter intake (DMI) and weight gain (Gain) of steers Calculated from Ørskov et al. (1988)
  • Conclusion Part 1  Importance of ligno cellulosic biomass (LCB) particularly from crop residues as fodder resource is still increasing  Overall monetary value of grain to crop residue (food to feed/fodder?) is getting narrower  “Intuitively” small differences in crop reside fodder quality can have large effects on livestock productivity  Accumulative effect of higher ME concentration plus higher voluntary feed intake
  • Topics Part 2  Pathways in 2nd generation biofuel technologies of common interest to renewable energy researchers and animal nutritionists  Mechanical, chemical, physical and biological pre-treatment approaches  Pilot testing of one spin-off technology for upgrading fodder value of LCB
  • - -
  • re- rea e re rea e io a e o e Ru e icro ial i e ioer al LU - Unclear benefit for ruminant nutrition, more research with new enzymes/enzyme cocktails needed Demand/potential for monogastric nutrition “One pot” complete enzymatic conversions Swell and disrupt hemicellulose-cellulose-lignin matrix Partially hydrolyze xylan structure Increase surface and porocity of fiber stucture Efficient harvest and collection of high volume-low density biomass Balance central versus decentralized approach Optimize physical form-transport-susceptibility to pre treatment-voluntary feed intake io a raw a o er
  • Pre-treatment Surface area Solubilization HC Structure L Toxic BP Mechanical + - - - Steam explosion + + + + Liquid hot water + + - - Acid + + - + Alkaline + - + - Oxidative + + - Thermal + acid + - + + Thermal + alkaline + - + - Thermal + oxidative + - + - Thermal + alkaline + oxidative + - + - Ammonia fiber expansion + - + - Carbon dioxide + + + - Modified from Hendriks and Zeeman (2009 Common pre-treatment approaches and their effects
  • Likely criteria for filtering pre- treatment approaches  Investment, economy, environment  Loss or difficult to recover soluble CHO  Formation of toxic substances, health issues  Information about potential impact on fodder quality improvement (tentatively AFEX)
  • Effect of Ammonia Fiber Expansion (AFEX) on nitrogen (N), cell wall (NDF) content and in vitro true digestibility (TDMD) of 11 roughages N g/kg DM NDF g NDF/kg DM TDMD g/kgDM AFEX 27.0 764 738 Control 10.4 629 527 Calculated from Bals et al. (2010)
  • In vitro gas production from diets consisting of pellets with 80% untreated and AFEX treated maize stover at different incubation times 1 _________________________________________________________ Time (hr) Control AFEX _________________________________________________________ 4 42.3b 61.2a 12 97.6b 139.2a` 24 147.6b 206.3a 48 203.6b 262.1a _____________________________________________ * Results are presented as mL of gas/g sample dry matter a-b Means within rows with different letters differ at P < 0.05 1 MSU/MBI unpublished results Blümmel and Dale, submitted Preliminary findings: intake in sheep about 45% increased
  • Conclusion Part 2  Past and ongoing investment into 2nd generation bio- fuel technologies are enormous compared to classical investment into feed research  Search for spin-off technologies almost mandatory, common interest at least to glucose level  More systematic exploration required extending to monogastric nutrition  Obviously economics will be more decisive than biology  However, one percent unit increase in digestibility is associated with at least 5% increase in livestock productivity)
  • 2121 Thank you for your attention!