In 2004, students involved in Heifer In Your Tank found that you can travel from Edmonton to Calgary on the methane produced from 88 heifers. Using their information and combining new technologies such as biodiesel, we have found a better way to get your Hummer further down the road.
We compared two fields, each consisting of 20 acres of canola – one used to produce biodiesel and the other fed to cows which produce methane – and calculated the energy harnessed from each field. We then compared the fuel mileage of a Hummer using both kinds of fuel to determine which can get the Hummer further.
Biodiesel is made from canola oil which can be converted at a 1:1 ratio from canola oil to biodiesel. From 20 acres of canola, yielding an average of 45 bushels per acre, we can make 120 gallons of oil per acre, or 2500 gallons total. Changing oil to biodiesel takes relatively little time and is very efficient. From our yield of oil, 2500 gallons of biodiesel can be created. At 14 miles per gallon, this amount of fuel will be enough to drive 35000 miles or 50 000 kms. Using information from the previous Heifer In Your Tank group, enough methane would be produced from 20 acres of canola to drive 4,500 km. Biodiesel made from canola would allow travel of an extra 45,500 km at 14 miles per gallon.
Using cows to create methane, is a relatively inefficient process as a large amount of energy is used for both production and maintenance of the cow. Producing biodiesel eliminates the production and maintenance losses from the animal, allowing an energy savings of ten-fold.
Biodiesel is made using a chemical process called transesterification which adds a strong acid to the oil and produces a byproduct of glycerol and biodiesel. Glycerol can be sold in the market to offset some cost of production. Biodiesel offers many benefits both to the environment and to the user’s engine. Environmental benefits include reduced reliance on fossil fuels and lower emissions as compared to burning regular diesel. Biodiesel offers other benefits including increased consumer acceptance due to better smelling exhaust. Using canola to make biodiesel adds a French Fry smell when the fuel is burned. Benefits to engines, as compared to regular diesel fuel, include better lubrication, especially when compared to new ultra low sulphur diesel introduced in October 2006. Sulphur is ow limited to 15 parts per million, and it played an important part in adding lubrication to diesel fuel. Biodiesel is supported by many engine makers in the agriculture industry, including John Deere and New Holland which both allow use of up to 5% blend of biodiesel with regular diesel in their new equipment.
This is a very exciting new technology helping agriculture throughout Canada. When comparing energy created from 20 acres of biodiesel vs. 20 acres of methane, 10 times the energy is created, showing biodiesel is a much better choice. Energy gains from biodiesel could be one of the future options for Canada’s farmers, and could help reduce dependence on fluctuating oil prices for industry.
“An increase in consumption of commodities driven by biodiesel manufacturing will drive prices higher, allowing a better future for Canadian farmers”, says Rick Dobush a Western Canadian Farmer. Next time you fill up your Hummer, remember that biodiesel helps your vehicle, farmers, and the environment.
- Dustin Dinwoodie, Nicole Hurt, Dan Rondeau and Chuck Scwanbeck
During the study, it was found that this type of ecological grazing aids in the reduction of non-native fauna and reintroduces ecosystem diversity that existed when bison roamed the prairies. Non-native grass species such as the Yellow Starthistle are reduced by grazing and Common Burdock is reduced by trampling. Trampling also increases the abundance of microenvironments for flora and fauna. Ecological grazing has allowed for native grasses to grow and provide for other species in the environment. Some native grasses such as spear grass and fescues are able to provide nutrients in fall and winter of the grazing season if left for the spring and summer months. Ecological grazing on native pastures can provide cattle diverse amount of native grasses to select in their diet. Since the pasture is not overgrazed, higher quality forage is available for livestock to consume, which can improve the average daily gain desired by the producers.
In the past, bison were free to roam the western prairies. They moved in large herds and intensively grazed one area of native prairie grass before moving on. This natural grazing pattern allowed for native prairie grass to flourish and the bison to maintain healthy herd status. In 2001, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration launched a study on a national wildlife area in Southern Saskatchewan. This study attempted to mimic historical grazing patterns of bison with domestic beef cattle, using a system of rotational grazing on native prairie grass. The land was intensively grazed for a two to three week period for three consecutive years. Pasture was left untouched for 3-6 years to allow re-growth of natural vegetation.
Although Ecological grazing has many benefits, it may not be ideal for the current Alberta beef production. For one cow to be sustained for 5 months on native grass, 7.09 acres of land would be required whereas a maintained grazing system could sustain the same cow using only 1.89 acres. This land requirement is not economically feasible for production cost of cattle or for the growing population. According to Darrell Holmstrom, a local beef producer, it would be more profitable to farm canola over cattle that use ecological grazing system. "We need a workable reality, and this just wouldn’t work." Currently, improvements to cattle grazing methods are needed to accommodate decreasing pasture land, profit needs and increasing demand for environmentally conscious practices. Forage Program Manager Grant Lastiwka believes that these practices need to begin with the producer. Grant remarks, "Who could do it better than producers, who are managing any grazing system to simultaneously balance economic, environmental, and human needs. This holistic system thinking makes us more economically and environmentally friendly. Optimization of these resources in this way creates a synergistic process that gets sustainable results".
- Jodi Holstrom, Breanna Chmilar, Mark Graham, Elizabeth Gainer, Brittany Wiese, Sara Casebeer and Nicole Hiebert
Whenever the topic of ethanol comes up, many questions follow. Is ethanol really a better choice because of less greenhouse gas emissions? What is going to happen to ethanol production in the future? Is it really a worthwhile cause? Are ethanol producers really stealing feed from cows? One of the biggest concerns when it comes to ethanol is whether or not it will be a feasible operation. Dr. Bressler of the University of Alberta says, "if all corn grown in the United States is converted to ethanol, it can satisfy only 15% of current transportation." This could be a problem as Dr. Bressler says, "the United States is hoping to displace 30% of the nation’s gasoline use with ethanol by 2030." But if all of the corn is converted to ethanol than there would not be any left for human or animal consumption many people would argue. But surprisingly "40% of the increase in food costs comes from increases in oil and energy costs while only 20% can be attributed to biofuel production" Dr. Bressler explains. The byproducts of ethanol production are not wasted either. The mash can be fed back to animals such as cows in their diets. An entire corn plant can be fed to cows and it will give their complete ration. To feed 32 cows on only corn it takes 654kg of corn, which is equivalent to 100 liters of ethanol. When it comes to environmental concerns, there is no question that ethanol is better for the environment. A SUV than runs on pure ethanol will produce 12.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every 30,000 kilometers traveled while gasoline produces 15.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Vehicles that run on ethanol have lower fuel consumption, the SUV has about 25% less, but they still produce fewer emissions that are harmful to the environment. Dr. Randhawa of Agriculture and Agrifood Canada at the Lethbridge Research Center tells us that there are "less smog and volatile compounds in ethanol compared to gasoline. About 10% less. Also ethanol produces less fumes." Another attraction of ethanol explained by Dr. Randhawa is that "ethanol blends have a higher octane number, resulting in more horsepower achieved per liter." Ethanol could be a feasible operation if enough corn is produced to satisfy the nation’s transportation needs. Ethanol is lower in carbon dioxide emissions, smog and other volatile compounds that cause harm to the environment. Ethanol producers are not really stealing food from animals as the byproducts can be fed back to the animals. Overall, ethanol seems to be a reasonable fuel to be used in our vehicles. -Kelsey Reimer, Jolene Noble, Eric Ginda, Dan Visser and Brent Puchalski
