ethanol byproduct use by feedlots g. erickson, t. klopfenstein & many students

Ethanol byproduct useby feedlots

G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students

DRY MILLING-WDG(+S)GRAIN

GRIND, WET, COOK, ENZYMESYEAST

FERMENTATION

STILL ALCOHOL & CO2

STILLAGE

DISTILLERS GRAINSWDG, DDG

DISTILLERS SOLUBLESWDGSDDGS

Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE

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

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

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

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%.

Nutrient Averages (All Plants)

• 31.0% CP• 11.9% Fat• 0.83% P• 0.77% S

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%

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

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

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

Use

• Inclusion < 15% (2-3 lb): protein

• Inclusion > 15% (4+ lb): energy

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedlot Diet Issues for DGS Roughages

Corn processing

Rumensin & Tylan

Feeding greater amounts

Sulfur

Phosphorus

Storage

Do we have to feedgrain?

Sulfur/Polio

4143 finished cattle

24 “pulled” as “brainers”

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”

Sulfur/Polio Recommendations

< 0.48% S – low risk

50% WDGS ≈ 0.47% suflur

Know levels in byproducts

Water S?

Maintain roughage!, increase?

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

0102030405060708090

100

0 25 50 75

WDGS

WCGF

BP (50:50 Blend)

(%D

M)

WCGF/WDGS combination

Loza et al., 2003

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

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

0102030405060708090

100

0 30-0 15-15 0-30 30-30

WDGS

WCGF

BP (%DM)

(%D

M)

WCGF/WDGS combination

Buckner et al., 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-$

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-$

Beef Extension Pagehttp://beef.unl.edu

Beef Reports

CONTACT: Galen EricksonC220 Animal Science; P. O. Box 830908Lincoln, NE 68583geericks@unlnotes.unl.eduPH: 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