Ethanol

[Pulseman]

If the US demand at this time is for 2 bln bushel of corn / year, then only a portion of this is removed as starch from the corn, the balance goes, as low priced protein substitued agains soja meal, canola meal and: feed peas!

How much of the 2 bln bushels of corn is left after the ethanol is produced?

[charliep]

Googled and found the following.

http://www.ethanol.org/FAQs.htm

How is ethanol made? Ethanol is produced by taking the starch or sugar portion of the corn and fermenting it. The fermented starch is then distilled into alcohol. The excess water is removed so the resulting ethyl alcohol (ethanol) is very pure – 200 proof. Only the starch portion of the corn, which is about 70% of the kernel, is made into ethanol. The remaining portion is left over in the form of a co-product called distillers grain. This is a highly nutritious animal feed that contains all the remaining fats, oils, and proteins after the starch is taken out and converted to ethanol.

How many gallons of ethanol can be made from a bushel of corn? With today's technology, one bushel of corn yields 2.8 gallons of ethanol. And that number is constantly increasing. Just a few years ago, that number was closer to 2.5 gallons per bushel of corn.

How many bushels of corn are needed for a typical ethanol plant? How many acres of corn would be needed to satisfy that demand? An “average” ethanol plant today might be able to produce 50 million gallons of ethanol annually. A plant this size would require approximately 18 million bushels of corn. At the 2004 national corn crop average yield of 140 bushels per acre, approximately 128,500 acres of corn would be needed to supply the ethanol plant.

Don't understand the nutritional part but my understanding is best for dairy - by pass protein.

May also be better to use locally in a close by as wet distillers grains (ie. like Poundmaker Feedlots at Lanigan, SK.) to reduce the cost of drying.

[ianben]

I found this anouncement figures near end. US seems to be going for ethanol in a big way.
US BioEnergy announces plans for ethanol plant in Minnesota

BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA, U.S. — US BioEnergy Corporation announced April 13 that it has obtained options on land near Springfield, Minnesota, U.S. Contingent on zoning, permitting, tax incentives and financing, US BioEnergy intends to construct a 100 million-gallon-per-year (mgy) ethanol plant on the site located just east of Springfield, along the DM&E railroad and U.S. Highway

The proposed plant near Springfield will be a 100 mgy natural-gas-fired, dry-grind ethanol facility. A plant of this size typically consumes approximately 37 million bushels of corn and produces 320,000 tons of dried distillers grains annually. Once operational, the facility would likely employ more than 40 people.

[dalek]

The best number I've been able to find was from a dairy nutritionist working for an ethanol plant in the US who said that a bushel of corn run through the plant ends up producing distillers grain that is nutritionally equivalent to 18 lbs of dry corn (with a little variance from plant to plant). So about 30% of the corn is left, at least nutritionally.

[WRAPper]

Good numbers Dalek, I think we should propose that the grains industry form another couple of committees in Canada and a focus group or two and do a few analysis's of Bio energy, Biodiesel in particular, and maybe target an interim report with the intent to form an ad hoc working group to come up with an feasibility study on the likelyhood that the entire bioenergy industry in North America is going to be built across the 49th, While we sit on our assets and do little.

[Incognito]

Nah, we will keep exporting raw product, just as we always do.

In 2010 when the 5% mandatory levels come in, we will be importing ethanol... and because no one has done the math, we will be subsiding the US farmer.

And Canadians were preoccupied with a $100,000 Byrdie this week...good grief..

[wd9]

Wrapper, you may be doing little, but many are doing lots, investing a lot of resources into this file. Canada is about 10 years behind the US regarding biofuels, 20 years behind Europe, and 30 years behind Brazil. The fact we are an energy exporting country makes alternative energy policy and budgetary committments a slow process.

But the process is going on - success yet to be determined. One way or another, farmers with land and the ability to produce energy with crops will do OK regardless of how Canadian social energy policy ends up looking like.

[WRAPper]

WD9
Doing what I can with the time my life, family and farm can allow and that's less than some, more than most. My efforts in this regard are not just limited to posting on Agriville.

Hopefully we are all pulling in the same direction and we can make up some of that distance that we have seemed to let happen in this industry. Hopefully the federal budget will contain some items in this regard the provincial one in Alberta was a disappointment.

If we don't get moving and soon there is zero doubt in my mind we won't ever, as I don't believe we will see meaningfull progress in this round of WTO talks and the next US farm bill is looming ahead of us. I fully expect the next US farm bill to shift support heavily towards US domestic production of Biofuels both corn and soy based.

Heres three recent articles
to show just what kind of facilities they build and what we can expect from the 07 farm bill.


US BioEnergy plans new ethanol plant near Springfield, Minn.


14 Apr 06 - BROOKINGS, S.D. -- US BioEnergy Corp. has obtained options on land near Springfield, Minn., where it intends to construct a 100-million-gallon-per-year (mgy) ethanol plant.

Contingent on zoning, permitting, tax incentives and financing, US BioEnergy plans to build on the site located just east of Springfield, along the DM&E railroad and US Highway 14.

"One thing that attracted us to this site was the ability to work closely with Harvest Land Cooperative and CHS for corn origination. We need to have strong local relationships to make a plant of this size successful and we have that with these two groups," said Steve Myers, senior vice president, US BioEnergy.

US BioEnergy has initial agreements in place with Harvest Land Cooperative and CHS Inc. to assist with the corn origination for this plant.

Mike Weelborg, general manager, Harvest Land Cooperative, said, "We look forward to working with US BioEnergy. This plant's corn demand will be a good thing for this region. An increase in demand for corn usually means good economics for local farmers."

CHS Inc. Country Operations Senior Vice President John McEnroe said, "The aggressive growth within the ethanol industry has a definite impact on our business - we think a positive one. This ethanol plant near Springfield is going to need a lot of corn and we welcome a new destination for our corn production. Ethanol production is good for rural America and we're glad to play a role in it."

The proposed plant near Springfield will be a 100 mgy natural-gas-fired, dry-grind ethanol facility. A plant of this size typically consumes approximately 37 million bushels of corn and produces 320,000 tons of dried distillers grains annually. Once operational, the facility would likely employ more than 40 people.

US BioEnergy currently has two ethanol plants under construction: US Bio Albert City, a 100 mgy plant in Iowa; and US Bio Woodbury, a 45 mgy plant in Michigan. In addition, US Bio Janesville, a 100 mgy plant in Minnesota; and US Bio Hankinson, a 100 mgy plant in North Dakota; are under development. Additional acquisitions are pending or under consideration.

In addition, US BioEnergy's subsidiary United Bio Energy, LLC, provides dried distiller grains marketing and/or management services for 11 operating plants and three under construction.

US BioEnergy Corp. is a Brookings, S.D.-based company building biofuels plants on strategic sites, partnering with local farmers and communities to provide renewable fuels to America.

07 farm bill
US lawmakers see ethanol as force in new farm bill
Tue Apr 4, 2006 6:15 PM ET
Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) - The upcoming overhaul of the U.S. farm program will put more emphasis on developing renewable fuels as a way to boost farm income, leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee said on Tuesday.

Chairman Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, said he wanted to "greatly expand" the Agriculture Department's grant and loan programs for research into renewable energy and to finance projects like ethanol plants.

"I think this (energy) is going to be one of the key things in the next farm bill," said Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the Democratic leader on the committee. "I think it I'd going to be the next place to look for income for farmers."

Long a popular cause in farm country, fuel ethanol use is skyrocketing, aided by the 2005 law that guarantees the homegrown fuel a share of the motor fuel market.

President George W. Bush has called for wider use of renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, to reduce reliance on imported oil.

During separate appearances before a meeting held by the North American Agricultural Journalists professional group, Chambliss and Harkin said they wanted to broaden the number of crops used in distilling ethanol. Chambliss mentioned sugar and switchgrass while Harkin cited the prospect for ethanol from cellulose -- corn stalks, woody plants and wood chips.

Rep. Collin Peterson, Democratic leader on the House Agriculture Committee, said he expected to see a request soon for a large subsidy for making ethanol from sugar. It was "one of the dumbest ideas I've heard around this town in a while," Peterson told NAAJ.

"This is a bad idea I'm trying to expose as a bad idea," said Peterson. He said U.S. sugar costs too much to be an economical feedstock for ethanol. The proposed subsidy rate of $1.50 a gallon would be nearly triple the excise tax break allowed for ethanol, now made mainly from corn (maize).

Yet Peterson applauded the potential of locally owned ethanol plants to be a source of income and jobs for rural communities. He suggested Congress should try to order all gasoline service stations to have a pump for E85, fuel that is 85 percent ethhanol ans 15 percent gasoline.


Here a recent one from DR. David Kohl

Kohlpredicts subsidy cuts in 2007 U.S. Farm Bill
By Jeff Esau - AgriNews Contributor


Canadian producers frustrated for years by high U.S. farm subsidies may get some satisfaction, if not relief, when the U.S. revisits its Farm Bill next year, according to Dr. David Kohl, a U.S. expert on American farm policy. He says the bill, which lays out national U.S. agricultural policy and which is renegotiated every five years, could see reductions to U.S. farm subsidies as high as 60 percent.

Professor Emeritus at Virginia Tech’s Department of Agriculture, Dr. Kohl was in Ottawa on March 2 to address 200 attendees at the Canadian Horticultural Council’s annual general meeting. In an interview with The AgriNews, he said the extent of the subsidy cuts - expected to be anywhere from 20- to 60-percent - will depend on "the health of the U.S. economy, what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also what occurs with Medicare and Medicaid."

"Basically, your next Farm Bill in the U.S. is going to be very conservationist and environmentally oriented. It’s also going to be very energy oriented because of our energy challenges. And it’s also going to be very ‘homeland security,’" said Dr. Kohl. "It’s not going to be business as usual south of the border. It’s going to come back more in line with what you folks are doing here in Canada and what’s going on around the globe," he added, referring to efforts to reduce agricultural tariffs to level the sector’s playing field.

"One thing south of the border, people vote with their pocketbook," he declared.

Dr. Kohl argues that the political will to reduce subsidies will be driven by "bottom line economics" that could see other priorities-such as the U.S. federal deficit and the need to overhaul Medicare-trump traditional support for what he admits are "heavy subsidies that have protected a lot of our producers."

Considering 80 per cent of farms’ expenses reside in energy costs including fuel for machinery and chemical fertilizers, the U.S.’s oil supply as another key shaper of farm policy and practices.

"Directly or indirectly, eight out of every 10 dollars are somehow connected to oil, so one of the messages I have is that every agribusiness has got to have more stretch in its financial waistband."

He said historically, oil costs fluctuated between $5 and $10 per barrel, but today the price varies from $20 to $40 and beyond. "We’re U.S. $63 per barrel now, but it could go to $100 and then it could come back to $20," he explained.

Canada has undergone "a revolution" in the agricultural sector according to Dr. Kohl, particularly in the beef industry. The border closure in 2003 forced Canadian producers to "reinvent" themselves to cope with the drastic market shift. As a result, Canada is much farther ahead in terms of trace-back, identification of animals, and collating information on commodity type crops.

"You’ve put a lot of money and effort into revamping your processing system, so by the end of 2006 you’ll have quite a bit of state-of-the-art capacity," he said. He also sees emerging in Canada, particularly in Ontario, a robust "value-added indus.ry," referring to customized commodity crops such as grains with specific attributes aimed at niche markets.

These Canadian trends mirror those emerging in Australia and New Zealand where farm subsidies were pulled, forcing their agricultural sectors to adapt and become more efficient. Dr. Kohl considers those countries to be "very competitive globally," and suggests Canada continue to adopt a similar global perspective and become "a strong niche player" rather than try to compete with the U.S., which he calls "an 800 lb gorilla south of the border."

His advice for individual farmers is this: become efficient before you try to get bigger.

"Everyone tries to grow themselves out of problems," he said. The rule of thumb for all producers should be "better is better before bigger is better." This is particularly true in the oilseed sector, where competition from Southeast Asia, South America and the Ukraine make sustaining a profitable operation in Canada a big challenge. "The reality is if you’re going to be in grains, two out of every 10 years the markets and weather line up, and people make lots of money." For the other eight years, it’s "a struggle" and only the really efficient producer can "eke out a small profit."

He said a number of "blue sky factors"- such as a drought or a major catastrophe in other grain producing areas - can quickly turn people here from complaining about poor returns to being "flu.h with cash."

Canadian agricultural producers are "very spirited" and "hungry for knowledge," according to Dr. Kohl. Referring to modern farming as "a knowledge business," he said that "you can measure a person’s financial balance by the books they read and the people they interact with." Farm organizations are particularly important in gathering and disseminating the information, including best practices, necessary to be highly efficient.

"You have to get two to six hours of education per week to stay abreast in an information-based society."

Dr. Kohl’s visit to Ottawa was part of the RBC’s Agricultural Speaking Series.

WD9 it is nice to see you saying work is being done, wasn't too long ago you were telling me it wasn't a viable industry. The trouble with us as Canadians is we tend to lag rather than lead. It seems to have happened here.

[wd9]

I know Wrapper, just trying to encourage a response....

It still isn't viable today without the US per gallon incentive or the European incentive. If it was, there would be development in Canada like in the US.

35 plants are under construction in the US today. Average size 60 million gallon per year with 5 being at 100 million. This will add 2 billion to the 4.5 billion gallon capacity. When all is running it should use 2 to 2.5 ish billion bushels of highly subsidized corn annually.

[WRAPper]

Funny we must be on the same wavelength me too, scary thought huh?
I had too come in from hooking the AirDrill up to say

Besides I don't need to do anything thats why I have you WD9. LOL
Have a good spring, try and find some time to seed a crop in between.......

[Pulseman]

Hello Charlie,

Than you for the answer. So we are actually removing 70% of corn from the trade by making ethanol (of course only to the maximum that is used for ethanol production). That is better then I thougth it would be. Agree with others that action in our country is needed, but I can not make the numbers work if feed grain hits $3.00/bushel or more. I guess we need the taxes of the ethanol (bio-fuel) portion of fuel and the mandatory blend of say 3-5% renewable fuel in all sold fuels.

[wd9]

Pulseman, peas have the advantage of a higher Net Energy Value (NEV) because they don't require Nitrogen which is a huge part of the input cost of corn ethanol to calc the NEV. Charlie or others, any good sites with economics on peas vs corn?

[dalek]

So 70% of the corn being used to generate ethanol is "new" corn, and the ethanol plants already up and running in Ontario are boasting that they're "only" using 65-70% US corn as if the other 30% is new market for Ontario corn. But if they're at 70% US, they're using Canadian tax dollars to create NO new net market for Canadian corn.