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 ConferenceBengalaru, 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 ResiduesPlanted 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 Nov0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sorghum grain

Sorghum stover

3.4

6.5

Month of trading

Ind

ian

Ru

pee

per

kg

Yearly mean

2004 to 2005

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sorghum stoverSorghum 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 ofsorghum 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 54 552.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2y = -4.9 + 0.17x; R2 = 0.75; P = 0.03

Stover in vitro digestibility (%)

Sto

ver

pri

ce (

IR/k

g D

M)

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 biologicalpre-treatment approaches

Pilot testing of one spin-off technology forupgrading fodder value of LCB

ŝŽŵĂƐƐ� ^ƚƌĂǁ ƐĂŶĚ^ƚŽǀ Ğƌ

WƌĞ-ƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚ

WƌĞƚƌĞĂƚĞĚŝŽŵĂƐƐ

WĞŶƚŽƐĞƐ

ZƵŵĞŶŵŝĐƌŽďŝĂůĚŝŐĞƐƚŝŽŶ

džƚĞƌŶĂůŶnjLJŵĞƐ

' >hK^

ƚŚĂŶŽů&ĞƌŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ

ŝƐƚŝůůĂƚŝŽŶ

^ƵĐƌŽƐĞ:ƵŝĐĞŽƌD ŽůĂƐƐĞƐ

zĞĂƐƚ

ƚŚĂŶŽů

^ƚŝůůĂŐĞ

������

����������

��������

����������

� ����������

��

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �ͳǣ - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

3UH-WUHDWP HQW

3UHWUHDWHG%LRP DVV

3HQWRVHV

5 XP HQP LFURELDOGLJHVWLRQ ( [ WHUQDO

ŶnjLJŵĞƐ

* / 8 &2 6( �����������

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �ͳǣ - � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

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

%LRP DVV6WUDZ VDQG6WRYHU

�����

���

������

�����

�����

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 approachesand 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

Ng/kg DM

NDFg 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 differentincubation 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 mattera-b Means within rows with different letters differ at P < 0.051 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!