April 17, 2007

 

Nebraska researchers introduce tool in using ethanol by-products for beef rations

 

 

Researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) has commenced on a new tool that will aid cattle producers in using ethanol co-products in beef rations.

 

The Cattle Co-product Optimizer Decision Evaluator, or Cattle CODE, is a computer-based model that evaluates economic returns for feeding byproducts to feedlot cattle, according to Dr Darrell Mark, Extension Livestock Marketing Specialist at the UNL.

 

Aside from Mark, other researchers who have worked on the CODE tool design included Dr. Galen Erickson, Dr. Terry Klopfenstein, Virgil Bremer and Crystal Buckner, all from UNL's animal science department.

 

The model is the comparison equipment to evaluate between a traditional pure corn ration and rations with various ethanol byproducts at levels defined by the user, Mark said.

 

The tool is free to anyone and is available by downloading the Excel file from the UNL website (http://beef.unl.edu/byproducts.shtml).

 

Once downloaded, producers can obtain results for specific feeding situations by entering a variety of information, including in and out weights and prices for cattle; dry matter intake and feed conversion for the control diet; diet and byproduct ingredients' dry matter content, price, and transportation costs; as well as processing and medication expense, death loss, yardage and interest rate.

 

The six byproducts included are Sweet Bran-a gluten feed produced by Cargill, traditional wet corn gluten feed, wet distillers grain plus solubles (WDGS), dry distillers grain plus solubles, Dakota Bran Cake-a fractionated byproduct including corn bran and distillers solubles, and Sweet Bran/wet distillers grains plus solubles combination.

 

The model will generate output scenarios for each byproduct type and/or inclusion level defined by the user based on feeding performance studies done at UNL. The projection puts a marginal value on including byproducts in rations, as opposed to not including them, he said.

 

The tool calculates the bottom line profitability of feeding under various diet, pricing and transportation scenarios, including projections of daily gain and days on feed. For example, the model can compare a diet with 30 percent WDGS to a diet with only high moisture corn.

 

Mark said that the important thing to remember with the CODE tool is that part of the differential, positive or negative, is based on the expectation that average daily gain and feed conversion is better when feeding ethanol byproducts. However, additional costs may also be associated with feedstuffs used, such as the cost of hauling, or the extra cost at the feedyard to mix and deliver a bulkier, wetter feed.

 

The tool also helps producers decide between using wet and dry distillers grain.

 

The CODE tool, Mark said, could determine better feed conversion and average daily weight gain on wet distillers though it might incur there might be additional costs.

 

He explained that a wet product is located farther than dry, hence, the tool can help users find their break-even mileage to know whether its more economical to haul wet product farther and get better performance or use dry product from closer vicinities and more inexpensive to carry.

 

The only restrictions for the tool, Mark said, are that the model should not be used when byproduct inclusion levels are above 50 percent of the ration on a dry matter basis, as there is insufficient data for inclusion levels that high.  Also, when choosing the input of Sweet Bran/WDGS combination, users must be cautious, since previous research only supports a 1:1 blend of the two, or sweet bran inclusion levels close to 30 percent dry matter with varying WDGS levels.

 

So far, the model has generated a lot of interest in the past six months, Mark said, as he and Erickson have both discussed the benefits of the CODE tool on meetings and conferences. 

 

The UNL team will continue to develop and fine-tune the model as they continue research on feeding byproducts and how cattle respond to various inclusion levels. He expects the team will also work on the economic side of the model and begin including additional costs such as manure handling where some aspects are changing when feeding large amounts of co-products.