animal nutrition and alternative feedstocks · distillers by-products ¾wet distiller’s grains...

Animal Nutrition and Alternative

Feedstocks

Gerald HuntingtonDepartment of Animal

Science

Distillers By-Products

Wet Distiller’s Grains (25 – 35% DM)Distiller’s Grains (88 – 90% DM)

Modified Distiller’s grain + Solubles (50% DM)

Distiller’s Grains + Solubles (88 – 90% DM)

Condensed Distiller’s Solubles (70% DM)

From: Tjardes & Wright, SDSU

Need Information? http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Issues with Distiller’s By-ProductsVariability in nutrient content, digestibility, and physical characteristics

From plant to plantFrom batch to batch

New processes resulting in new productsDifficult to differentiate product qualityNo standardized tests to determine value

There is a need for quality management and certificationContaminants

Antimicrobials (e.g. Virginiamycin, Penicillin)Mycotoxins (are concentrated 3-fold the level present in the original grain)Sulfur (varies from 0.31 to 1.93)

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Nutrient Content of DDGS and WDG

Item DDGS WDG SBMCP, % DM 31-33 30-35 51

RUP/UIP, % DM 59-72 47-55 46TDP, % DM 71-85 82 94TDN,% DM 77-88 70-110 85P, % DM 0.4-0.8 0.5-0.8 0.7Ca, % DM 0.11-0.22 0.02-0.08 3.02S, % DM 0.31-1.93 0.5

From: Kleinschmidt et al., JAS 2007; Tjerdes and Wright, SDSU 2002

Nutrient Content of DDGS and DDG

Item DDGS DDGDM 88-90 88-90CP, % DM 25-32 25-32

RUP/UIP, % DM 47-57 50-60TDN,% DM 85-90 77-88P, % DM 0.8-1.08 0.4-0.8Ca, % DM 0.17-0.26 0.11-0.20

From: Tjerdes and Wright, SDSU 2002

Comparison of DDGS With Corn and Soybean Meal

Item DDGS Corn SBMCP, % 28-34 8 47.5Fat, % 8.8-12.8 4 3.0DEa, kcal/kg DM 4.0-4.3 4 4.3Starch,% 5-15 65 -P, % 0.61 0.28 0.69Lys, % 0.78 0.26 3.02ADF, % 9.9 2.8 5.4

From: Stein, Univ. Illinoisa Swine

Amino Acid Composition of Two Qualities of DDGS

Light DDGS Dark DDGS DDGS (NRC, 1998)

Lysine, % 0.75 (17.3) 0.47 (26.5) 0.59Methionine, % 0.63 (13.6) 0.44 (4.5) 0.48Threonine, % 0.99 (6.4) 0.86 (7.3) 0.89Tryptophan, % 0.22 (6.7) 0.17 (19.8) 0.24Valine, % 1.32 (7.2) 1.22 (2.3) 1.23Arginine, % 1.06 (9.1) 0.81 (18.7) 1.07Histidine, % 0.67 (7.8) 0.54 (15.2) 0.65Leucine, % 3.12 (6.4) 2.61 (12.4) 2.43Isoleucine, % 0.99 (8.7) 0.88 (9.1) 0.98Phenylalanine, % 1.29 (6.6) 1.12 (8.1) 1.27

Values in ( ) are CV’s among plants From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Amino Acid Digestibility in Pigs in 36 Samples of DDGS

Item Range Avg. NRCLys, % 44 – 78 63 59Met, % 74 – 89 82 75Thr, % 62 – 83 71 65Trp, % 54 – 80 69 -Ile, % 67 – 83 76 79Val, % 66 – 82 75 67

From: Stein, Univ. Illinois

Comparison of Phosphorus Level and Relative Availability

in SwineLight DDGS Dark DDGS DDGS

NRC (1998) Corn

NRC (1998)

Total P, % 0.78Range

0.62-0.87

0.79 0.73 0.25

P Availability, % 90Range88-92

No data 77 14

Available P, % 0.70 No data 0.56 0.03

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Corn-SBM Diets for Pigs With or Without 20% DDGS or Phytase on Daily Fecal P excretion (g/d)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Daily Fecal Phosphorus Excretion, g/d

Corn-SBMC-SBM + Phytase20% DDGS20% DDGS + Phytase

a,b,c Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)x,y Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.15)

a

bx

aby

cy

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Fat Quality in Pigs Fed Corn-Soy Diets Containing 0 to 30% DDGS

0 % 10% 20% 30%Belly thickness, cm 3.15a 3.00a,b 2.84a,b 2.71b

Belly firmness score, degrees

27.3a 24.4a,b 25.1a,b 21.3b

Adjusted belly firmness score, degrees

25.9a 23.8a,b 25.4a,b 22.4b

Iodine number 66.8a 68.6b 70.6c 72.0c

Means within a row lacking common superscripts differ (P < 0.05)

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Checklist When Buying DDGS for Swine

Crude protein: Min. 27%Crude fat: Min. 9%Phosphorus: Min. 0.55%Lysine: Min. 2.80% of crude proteinADF: Max. 12%Ask for quality control plan for mycotoxins

From: Stein, Univ. Illinois

Consequences of Feeding DDGS to Pigs

Flowability: May become a problemDiet Bulk: Will increasePerformance: No changeDressing %: May be slightly reduced Belly softness: Will be increasedIntestinal health: May be improvedLitter size: May be improvedP excretion: Will be reducedN excretion: Will increase slightly

From: Stein, Univ. Illinois

DDG for Growing Beef Heifers

316 heifers, 2 locations, 2 years, 5.3 – 5.7 BCSPrairie hay drylot for 200 d15% CP Supplement, 0.75% BW, 3 X more escape protein from DDGS than control (corn gluten feed +corn germ)

No effect on ADG (1.4 lb) or overall pregnancy rate (93%)

Increased AI conception rate with DDGS (57% vs. 40%)

From: Martin et al. JAS 2007

DDG for Growing Beef Heifers

60 heifers per treatment – 811 lb BW, 1.5 – 2.0 lb ADGBromegrass pasture 21% CP, 66% TDNSupplement 0 – 0.75% BW – CGM (control), DDGS, or corn oilDDGS improved ADG over control, neither escape protein or energy accounted for all improvement

Authors conclude that response mainly due to more MP

From: MacDonald et al UNL 2006

Inclusion Rates of High Quality DDGS in Swine Diets

Nursery pigs (> 7 kg)Up to 25 %

Grow-finish pigsUp to 20% (high levels may reduce pork fat quality)

Gestating sowsUp to 50%

Lactating sowsUp to 20%

Assumptions:- No mycotoxins- Formulate on a digestible amino acid and available phosphorus basis

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Inclusion Rates of WDG, DDGS in Cattle Diets

ROT: up to 20% of diet DM for growing, finishing, and lactating cattleInclusion over 40% of diet may reduce performance, carcass traitsWatch for over-conditioning of growing heifers

From: Klopfenstein, UNL 2001; Tjerdes and Wright SDSU 2002

DDGS Value ($/T) in Swine Finishing Diets

Corn ($/Bu):SBM ($/t)

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

175 $109 $ 119 $ 128 $ 138

200 $ 120 $ 130 $ 140 $ 150

225 $ 131 $ 141 $ 151 $ 161

From: Stein, Univ. Illinois

Max price without changing cost of complete diet

Feeding Value for Cattle

Energy basis – 120 - 150% corn equivalent(WDG > DDGS; fat content)Protein basis – 40% value of SBM for RDP/DIP, but equal to or greater than SBM for RUP/UIPSupply all P required, watch Ca:P ratioLow starch means less chance of rumen upsetWatch for high S intake, feed plus water sourcesTransportation costs for WDG

From: Klopfenstein, UNL 2001; Tjerdes and Wright SDSU 2002

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota

Key Recommendation

Currently, there is no grading system to differentiate quality.

Identify important DDGS quality characteristics that you want.

Identify the direct marketers that sell DDGS with those specifications.

Some marketers have developed an Identity Preservation system

Use nutrient profiles for the specific source(s) obtained when formulating diets

From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota