energy value of feeding distillers in a forage diet and feeding fresh versus stored distillers terry...

Energy Value of Feeding Distillers in a Forage Diet and

Feeding Fresh versus Stored Distillers

Terry Klopfenstein, B.L. Nuttelman, Crystal Buckner

Animal ScienceUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln

Reasons For Feeding DGWith Forage

• Crude Protein

• Undegradable Protein

• Energy

• P

• No Negative Assoc. Effects?

• “One Size Fits All”?

Paradigm Shifts

• Use Protein for Energy• Use Excess UIP for DIP

Escape Protein Values

Source % Protein escape

SBM 30

DWG 60-70%

DDG 60-70%

DS 30%

DDG Composition

Solubles Level, % (DM)Solubles Level, % (DM)aa

00 5.45.4 14.514.5 19.119.1 22.122.1

DM, %, % 95.595.5 92.192.1 90.890.8 89.389.3 89.689.6

CP, %CP, % 32.132.1 31.931.9 31.531.5 30.730.7 30.930.9

NDF, %NDF, % 36.836.8 34.934.9 31.931.9 30.330.3 29.329.3

Fat, %Fat, % 6.96.9 8.98.9 10.410.4 12.712.7 13.313.3

aaSolubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0% solubles DDGSolubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0% solubles DDG

DDG Protein Digestion, % of Entering

Solubles level, % DMSolubles level, % DM

Item 0 5.4 14.5 19.1 22.1

Ruminal 17.6 22.9 28.1 22.9 30.9

Post-ruminal 96.6 96.5 97.0 97.1 97.0

Total-tract 97.2 97.4 97.9 97.9 97.9

Fat Intake, kg/d

Solubles Level, %

DDG, % BW 0.0 5.4 14.5 19.1 22.1

0.25 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22

0.50 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33

0.75 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.40 0.43

1.00 0.31 0.37 0.41 0.48 0.49

Gain:FeedGain:Feed

Solubles Level, %Solubles Level, %

DDG, % BWDDG, % BW 0.00.0 5.45.4 14.514.5 19.119.1 22.122.1

0.250.25 0.1570.157 0.1390.139 0.1250.125 0.1400.140 0.1390.139

0.500.50 0.1340.134 0.1430.143 0.1590.159 0.1420.142 0.1620.162

0.750.75 0.1520.152 0.1510.151 0.1560.156 0.1590.159 0.1480.148

1.001.00 0.1430.143 0.1540.154 0.1630.163 0.1520.152 0.1480.148

DRC or DDG Effects on DMI, NDF Rates and pH

Item Cont. DRC DDGDaily

DMIh, % BWa 1.88 1.69 1.69

DMIt, % BWa 1.88 2.10 2.09

NDF, %/hab 4.34 3.43 4.09

pHab 6.30 6.22 6.12aCont. vs Supplements, P< .05.bDDG vs DRC.

DDG energy (forage diet)

ADG, lb/dcorn .81 1.57 .05

DDG .99 1.89 .05

F:Gcorn 15.9 9.8 .5

DDG 12.8 8.0 .5

DDG ~18 - 30% of cornLoy et al., 2003 Nebraska Beef Report (in press)

LOW HIGH SEM

Introduction

• Feedlot diets 100 – 140% energy value of corn

• DDGS contains 118 to 130% energy value of corn in forage diets (Loy et al., 2003)

Objective

• Determine the energy value of WDGS in comparison to DRC in high forage diets

Materials and Methods Pen Study

• Treatments– DRC– WDGS

• NRC-predicted energy and MP requirements – Isocaloric– Isonitrogenous

• Targeted 2.25 lb ADG

Materials and Methods Pen Study Diet Formulation

• 35% Sorghum Silage

• 25% WDGS or 33.6 % DRC– WDGS 127% energy value of DRC

• Grass hay adjusted for WDGS and DRC

Materials and Methods Pen Study

• 160 crossbred steers (286 ± 18 kg)

• 67 d growing trial

• 10 pens (16 steers/pen)

DRC WDGSInitial BW, lb 629 629DMI, lb/d 18 17.6ADG, lb 2.71 2.88G:F .15 .16

ResultsPerformance

• NRC (1996) model• TDN values

– DRC – 83%– Grass Hay – 52%– SS – 65%

• DRC Net Energy adjusters 100%– WDGS 98.96% to account for increased

gain

ResultsEnergy Calculation

• WDGS 108% TDN

• 130% Estimated energy value of DRC– TDN values (108/83)

ResultsEnergy Calculation

2009 Individual Barn

• Compare energy value of WDGS to DRC at three different levels in high forage diets.

Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn

• 60 cross bred steers (509 ± 28 lb)

• Individually fed 85 d

• Matched pair feeding

• 108% TDN value for WDGS

• WDGS– 15, 25, or 35% inclusion level

• DRC– 22, 41, and 60% inclusion level

Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn

• 30% Sorghum silage

• Decreased Grass hay with increasing levels of WDGS or DRC

• Soypass and urea

Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn

Energy Value of WDGS

DMI 15.6 15.6 16.1 16.1 15.7 15.7

ADG 1.84 1.98 2.32 2.56 2.47 2.70

G:F .119 .128 .144 .159 .158 .172

Corn WDGS Corn WDGS CornWDGS

Low Medium High

• Low WDGS (15% )– 146% Feeding Value

• MED WDGS (25%)– 149% Feeding Value

• HIGH WDGS (35%)– 142% Feeding Value

ResultsIndividual Barn

Materials and Methods

240 yearling steers (BW = 229 ± 16 kg)

Backgrounding

Late fall to April 21 (144 d)

Supplemented 5 lb/hd/d WCGF

Smooth brome grazing

April 22 to May 11 (21 d)

Materials and MethodsSummer grazing

May 12 to September 23 (135 d)

Treatment groups

1. No supplementation (CON)

2. MDGS supplementation at 0.6% BW (SUPP)

Results

Item CON SUPP

Initial BW, lb 506 504

Spring BW, lb 695 693

Feedlot BW, lb 914a 1030b

ADG, lb/d 1.36a 2.20b

a,bMeans with different superscripts differ (P < 0.001).

Meta-analysis

Griffin et al., 2009Griffin et al., 2009

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

ADGCON = 0.62 kg/d

ADGSUPP = 1.00 kg/d

Wet vs Dry DGS

Individually fed 13, 25, 40% of diet Alfalfa + forage sorghum silage

Wet vs Dry DGS1

1Nuttelman.235% of diet by regression.3Value vs DDGS.

DMI, lb 17.0 15.4

ADG, lb 2.69 2.48

F:G 0.158 0.161 (+5%)3

DDGS2

WDGS2

Response to UIP or Fat in DDGS

• Corn gluten meal, UIP

• Tallow, EE

• Equivalent levels to DDGS

DGS vs Corn

130% ± energy of corn 117% TDN @ corn = 90% 108% TDN @ corn = 83% Fat UIP

Feeding Fresh vs Wet Ensiled

WDGS or Solubles and Residues

Solubles vs WDGS1

1Wilken.

222.5% byproduct, 77.5% cornstalks.

DMI, lb 16.2 15.6

ADG, lb 1.04 1.25

F:G 15.5 12.5

Solubles2

WDGS2

Solubles vs WDGS1

1Peterson.

235% byproduct stored with 65% straw.

DMI, lb 11.0 9.87

ADG, lb 1.10 .88

F:G 9.70 11.2

Solubles2

WDGS2

Ensiling WDGS with Cornstalks1

1Wilken.

230% WDGS, 70% cornstalks.

DMI, lb 12.2 14.1

ADG, lb 1.02 1.43

F:G 11.95 9.83

Fresh2

Ensiled2

Effect of Ensiling WDGS and Straw1

1Peterson.

240% WDGS, 60% straw, pair fed.

3Different source of WDGS.

DMI, lb 9.50 9.37

ADG, lb 1.13 .97

F:G 8.64 10.6

Fresh2

Ensiled2,3

Bagging Effects1

DMI, lb 9.6 9.6 9.6

ADG, lb 0.89a 1.07b 1.11b

G:F 0.092b 0.110b 0.115b

F:G 13.3a 9.76b 8.99b

Fresh Bagged Bagged+1

137.5% WDGS, 62.5% straw (DM).2Plus inoculum.a,bP<0.05.