ethanol byproduct use by feedlots g. erickson, t. klopfenstein & many students
Post on 20-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Ethanol byproduct useby feedlots
G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students
![Page 2: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
DRY MILLING-WDG(+S)GRAIN
GRIND, WET, COOK, ENZYMESYEAST
FERMENTATION
STILL ALCOHOL & CO2
STILLAGE
DISTILLERS GRAINSWDG, DDG
DISTILLERS SOLUBLESWDGSDDGS
Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE
![Page 4: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
WET MILLING-CGF
CORNSTEEP
GRIND
SEPARATION
WET CORN GLUTEN FEED
STARCH, SWEETENER, ALCOHOLGLUTEN MEALCORN OIL
STEEP CORN BRAN
DRY CORN GLUTEN FEED
SEM, screenings, dist solubles
Cargill wet milling, Blair, NE
![Page 5: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Byp
rod
uct
s
• WDGS, modified (45% DM) • WDGS, traditional (35% DM)• DDGS (90% DM)• Syrup, distillers solubles, CCDS
• WCGF (45% DM)• WCGF-Sweet Bran (60% DM)• DCGF• Steep
• “new” distillers grains
![Page 6: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Testing Protocol
• Six Nebraska Dry Milling Ethanol Plants (WDGS and MDGS)– 4 sampling periods (one year)
• 10 samples*d-1
• 5 consecutive d• July, February, April, June
• 1 sample = 1 truck-load leaving plant– From the truck or pile to be loaded– Mixed and sub-sampled
![Page 7: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Dry Matter Variation in WDGS
Overall
Min. 30.7 28.5 26.2 26.5
Max. 35.2 37.2 35.8 35.1
Period 2
Min. 32.0 28.5 26.21 26.5
Max. 33.5 34.4 33.91 32.0
CV% 1.2 4.0 7.1 0.9
Day CV% 0.9 2.0 2.5 0.8
I II III IV
Ethanol Plant
129%.
![Page 8: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Nutrient Averages (All Plants)
• 31.0% CP• 11.9% Fat• 0.83% P• 0.77% S
![Page 9: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Fat Results and Variation
Plant
A B C D E F
Min Fat% -load
11.2 7.2 11.6 10.4 9.4 9.6
Avg Fat% 12.1 11.0 13.0 12.2 11.0 12.0
Max Fat% -load
13.0 12.8 15.3 13.7 13.5 13.5
Fat Average by Plant within Period Range 10.2-13.3%
![Page 10: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Sulfur Results and VariationPlant
A B C D E F
Min S% -load
0.44 0.58 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.71
Avg S% 0.71 0.74 0.76 0.83 0.76 0.85
Max S% -load
1.72 0.84 0.97 1.26 0.93 1.04
![Page 11: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1 26 51 75 100 125 150 175 200 227 264 289
Sample
Sulfu
r (%
DM
)
Sulfur% -- Period 1
![Page 12: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
1 26 51 76 101 126 151 176 201 226 251 276
Sample
Sul
fur
(%D
M)
Sulfur% -- Period 4
![Page 13: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Use
• Inclusion < 15% (2-3 lb): protein
• Inclusion > 15% (4+ lb): energy
![Page 14: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
UNL Studies UsedExperiment Year Diet DM % WDGS Hd/TxSindt et al. 1990 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Larson et al. 1991 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Ham et al. 1992 0, 40 32Fanning et al. 1997 0, 30 20Vander Pol et al. 2002 0, 20, 40 10Vander Pol et al. 2004 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 48Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50Corrigan et al. 2005 0, 15, 27.5, 40 40Luebbe et al. 2005 0, 15, 30 32
![Page 15: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Linear P < 0.01
Average Daily Gain
y = -0.0005x2 + 0.0279x + 3.4669
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
AD
G, l
b
Quadratic P < 0.01% WDGS (DM basis)
WDGS Level ADG (lb)0 3.4710 3.7020 3.8330 3.8740 3.8150 3.66
Predicted Values
![Page 16: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Feed Conversion
y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0309x + 6.4367
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
F:G
WDGS Level F:G 0 6.4410 6.1620 5.9530 5.8140 5.7450 5.73
Predicted Values
Linear P < 0.01Quadratic P = 0.09
% WDGS (DM basis)
![Page 17: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Marbling Score
y = -0.0277x2 + 1.3078x + 517.53
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mar
blin
g S
core
WDGS Level Marbling 0 518
10 52820 53330 53240 52650 514
Predicted Values
Linear P = 0.05Quadratic P = 0.05
% WDGS (DM basis)
![Page 18: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Studies Used
Experiment Year Diet DM % DDGS Hd/Tx
Benson et al. 2005 0, 15, 25, 35 48Bremer et al. 2005 0, 30 60Buckner et al. 2007 0, 10, 20, 30, 40 40Ham et al. 1994 0, 40 32May et al. 2007 0, 25 96
![Page 19: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Linear P < 0.01
Average Daily Gain
y = -0.00048x2 + 0.02466x + 3.4325
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
AD
G, l
b
Quadratic P < 0.01% DDGS (DM basis)
DDGS Level ADG (lb)0 3.4310 3.6320 3.7330 3.7440 3.65
Predicted Values
Cubic P = 0.54
![Page 20: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Feed Conversion
y = 0.000521x2 - 0.0259x + 6.6201
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50
F:G
DDGS Level F:G 0 6.6210 6.4120 6.3130 6.3140 6.42
Predicted Values
Linear P = 0.07Quadratic P = 0.02
% DDGS (DM basis)Cubic P = 0.97
![Page 21: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Marbling Score
y = -0.5498x + 540.03
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mar
blin
g S
core
Linear P = 0.07Quadratic P = 0.13
% DDGS (DM basis)
DDGS Level Marbling 0 54010 53520 52930 52440 518
Predicted Values
Cubic P = 0.79
![Page 22: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
y = -0.0004x2 + 0.022x + 3.64
R2 = 0.87
y = -0.0074x + 6.16
R2 = 0.77
2.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Modified WDGS level
Per
form
ance
ADGF:G
Modified WDGS
Huls et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
![Page 23: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Feeding Value Results
Feeding Value =((DGS G:F/CON G:F)-1)/(DGS inclusion decimal))+100
0 10 20 30 40 50DDGS FV, % of corn 100 153 123 107 100
WDGS FV, % of corn 100 145 142 137 131 126
Diet % DGS (DM basis)
MDGS FV, % of corn 100 123 127 118 109 111
![Page 24: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Corn Price with WDGS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
$3.50
$4.50
85% WDGS Price to Corn
40 Miles Distance
![Page 25: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
WDGS Price to Corn
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
90%
75%
60%
40 Miles Distance$3.50/bu Corn Price
![Page 26: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
UNL Studies Used
Experiment Year Diet DM % Sweet Bran Hd/Tx
Richards et al. 1993 0, 25 40
Scott et al. 1995 0, 10, 21, 38 40
Herold et al. 1996 0, 38 40
Scott et al. 1999 0, 32 60
Scott et al. 1999 0, 22 48
Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50
Losa et al. 2005 0, 30 72
![Page 27: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Average Daily Gain
y = 0.0126x + 3.6689
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Diet DM % WCGF
AD
G (
lb)
Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.67
![Page 28: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Feed Conversion
y = -0.0053x + 5.9566
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50
Diet DM % WCGF
F:G
(lb
/lb)
Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P = 0.03≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.48
![Page 29: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Feedlot Diet Issues for DGS Roughages
Corn processing
Rumensin & Tylan
Feeding greater amounts
Sulfur
Phosphorus
Storage
![Page 30: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Do we have to feedgrain?
![Page 31: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Sulfur/Polio
4143 finished cattle
24 “pulled” as “brainers”
![Page 32: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Sulfur/Polio
NRC .40% S
< 20% byproduct, 0.1% “pulls”
< 0.47% S, 0.14% “pulls”
0.47% to 0.58% S, 0.38% “pulls”
>0.58% S, 6.06% “pulls”
![Page 33: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Sulfur/Polio Recommendations
< 0.48% S – low risk
50% WDGS ≈ 0.47% suflur
Know levels in byproducts
Water S?
Maintain roughage!, increase?
![Page 34: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
High Levels of Wet Corn Gluten Feed
DRC 17.5% 35.0% 52.5% 70.0% 87.5%Item Control WCGF WCGF WCGF WCGF WCGF
ADG 3.45 3.58 3.74 3.59 3.56 3.39
DMI 22.81 23.58 23.83 23.71 22.71 22.53
Feed/gain 6.59 6.56 6.36 6.61 6.37 6.64
![Page 35: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
0 25 50 75
WDGS
WCGF
BP (50:50 Blend)
(%D
M)
WCGF/WDGS combination
Loza et al., 2003
![Page 36: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
3.99
4.63 4.56
3.9
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 25 50 75
BP
ADG
WCGF/WDGS combination
Loza et al., 2003
![Page 37: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
5.995.685.71
6.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 25 50 75
Feed Conversion
Q = <0.05
L = 0.32BP (%DM)
Loza et al., 2003
WCGF/WDGS combination
![Page 38: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
0 30-0 15-15 0-30 30-30
WDGS
WCGF
BP (%DM)
(%D
M)
WCGF/WDGS combination
Buckner et al., 2006
![Page 39: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
P< 0.05
4.074.47 4.56 4.66
4.27
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
CON 30WCGF 30Blend 30WDGS 60Blend
Treatment
AD
G,
lb
CON
30WCGF
30Blend
30WDGS
60Blend
WCGF/WDGS combination
Buckner et al., 2006
![Page 40: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
P< 0.05
5.82 5.86 5.58 5.34 5.60
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
CON 30WCGF 30Blend 30WDGS 60Blend
Treatment
DM
I/A
DG
CON
30WCGF
30Blend
30WDGS
60Blend
WCGF/WDGS combination
Buckner et al., 2006
![Page 41: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
WCGF/WDGS combination
0102030405060708090
100
0 30-0 30-10 30-15 30-20 30-25 30-30
WDGS
WCGF
BP (%DM)
(%D
M)
Loza et al., 2006
![Page 42: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
3.593.89 3.87 3.96 3.96 3.87 3.76
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 0 10 15 20 25 30
ADG
Lb
s/d
WDGS (%DM)
Q = 0.05
L = 0.24
a b
WCGF (%DM) 0 30 30 30 30 30 30
WCGF/WDGS combination
Loza et al., 2006
![Page 43: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
6.996.67 6.76 6.67 6.62 6.71 6.80
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 0 10 15 20 25 30
Q = 0.47
L = 0.76
WDGS (%DM)
F:G
WCGF (%DM) 0 30 30 30 30 30 30
a b
WCGF/WDGS combination
Loza et al., 2006
![Page 44: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Corn 82.5 43.8 - - 21.9 -WDGS - 43.8 65.6 43.8 32.8 32.8WCGF - - - 43.8 32.8 32.8Soyhulls - - - - - 21.9Grass - - 21.9 - - -
Molasses 5.0 - - - - -Alfalfa 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5Supplement 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Higher DGS
TRT: 83% corn 44DG: 66DG: 44DG: 33DG: 33DG:-corn -hay 44GF 33GF 33GF
-corn -hulls
![Page 45: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
DMI 26.1 25.2 26.6 24.8 26.1 25.8
ADG 4.03 4.47 4.03 3.97 4.16 3.73
F:G 6.48bc 5.65a 6.61c 6.26b 6.28b 6.93d
PEM, n 0 0 0 5 0 2
Higher DGS
F:G P = 0.06 for WDG-hay and soyhulls
TRT: 83% corn 44DG: 66DG: 44DG: 33DG: 33DG:-corn -hay 44GF 33GF 33GF
-corn -hulls
![Page 46: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
83 corn 44 DG-corn 66 DG-hay 33:33:corn
$, s
tee
r re
lati
ve
to
co
rn 65-$3.50
75-$3.50
85-$3.50
Higher DGS-$
![Page 47: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
83 corn 44 DG-corn 66 DG-hay 33:33:corn
$, s
tee
r re
lati
ve
to
co
rn 65-$5.50
75-$5.50
85-$5.50
Higher DGS-$
![Page 48: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 50: Ethanol byproduct use by feedlots G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022032714/56649d475503460f94a22ac8/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
CONTACT: Galen EricksonC220 Animal Science; P. O. Box 830908Lincoln, NE [email protected]: 402 472-6402
Acknowledge: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research / NPPDAbengoa Bioenergy Poet NutritionNebraska Corn Board Chief EthanolCargill Wet Milling Nebraska Beef CouncilUNL Foundation GARD US BioEnergy