Animal Nutrition and Alternative Feedstocks Gerald Huntington Department 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-Products � Variability in nutrient content, digestibility, and physical characteristics � From plant to plant � From batch to batch � New processes resulting in new products � Difficult to differentiate product quality � No standardized tests to determine value � There is a need for quality management and certification � Contaminants � 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 SBM CP, % DM 31-33 30-35 51 RUP/UIP, % DM 59-72 47-55 46 TDP, % DM 71-85 82 94 TDN,% DM 77-88 70-110 85 P, % DM 0.4-0.8 0.5-0.8 0.7 Ca, % DM 0.11-0.22 0.02-0.08 3.02 S, % 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 DDG DM 88-90 88-90 CP, % DM 25-32 25-32 RUP/UIP, % DM 47-57 50-60 TDN,% DM 85-90 77-88 P, % DM 0.8-1.08 0.4-0.8 Ca, % 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 SBM CP, % 28-34 8 47.5 Fat, % 8.8-12.8 4 3.0 DE a , kcal/kg DM 4.0-4.3 4 4.3 Starch,% 5-15 65 - P, % 0.61 0.28 0.69 Lys, % 0.78 0.26 3.02 ADF, % 9.9 2.8 5.4 a Swine From: Stein, Univ. Illinois
Amino Acid Composition of Two Qualities of DDGS Light DDGS Dark DDGS DDGS (NRC, 1998) Lysine, % 0.75 (17.3) 0.47 (26.5) 0.59 Methionine, % 0.63 (13.6) 0.44 (4.5) 0.48 Threonine, % 0.99 (6.4) 0.86 (7.3) 0.89 Tryptophan, % 0.22 (6.7) 0.17 (19.8) 0.24 Valine, % 1.32 (7.2) 1.22 (2.3) 1.23 Arginine, % 1.06 (9.1) 0.81 (18.7) 1.07 Histidine, % 0.67 (7.8) 0.54 (15.2) 0.65 Leucine, % 3.12 (6.4) 2.61 (12.4) 2.43 Isoleucine, % 0.99 (8.7) 0.88 (9.1) 0.98 Phenylalanine, % 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. NRC 44 – 78 Lys, % 63 59 Met, % 74 – 89 82 75 Thr, % 62 – 83 71 65 Trp, % 54 – 80 69 - Ile, % 67 – 83 76 79 Val, % 66 – 82 75 67 From: Stein, Univ. Illinois
Comparison of Phosphorus Level and Relative Availability in Swine Light DDGS Dark DDGS DDGS Corn NRC (1998) NRC (1998) Total P, % 0.78 0.79 0.73 0.25 Range 0.62-0.87 P Availability, % 90 No data 77 14 Range 88-92 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) a aby 1.6 bx 1.4 1.2 cy 1 Corn-SBM C-SBM + Phytase 0.8 20% DDGS 0.6 20% DDGS + Phytase 0.4 0.2 0 Daily Fecal Phosphorus Excretion, g/d 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) From: Shurson, Univ. Minnesota
Fat Quality in Pigs Fed Corn-Soy Diets Containing 0 to 30% DDGS 0 % 10% 20% 30% 3.15 a 3.00 a,b 2.84 a,b 2.71 b Belly thickness, cm 27.3 a 24.4 a,b 25.1 a,b 21.3 b Belly firmness score, degrees Adjusted belly firmness 25.9 a 23.8 a,b 25.4 a,b 22.4 b score, degrees Iodine number 66.8 a 68.6 b 70.6 c 72.0 c 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 protein � ADF: Max. 12% � Ask for quality control plan for mycotoxins From: Stein, Univ. Illinois
Consequences of Feeding DDGS to Pigs � Flowability: May become a problem � Diet Bulk: Will increase � Performance: No change � Dressing %: May be slightly reduced � Belly softness: Will be increased � Intestinal health: May be improved � Litter size: May be improved � P excretion: Will be reduced � N excretion: Will increase slightly From: Stein, Univ. Illinois
DDG for Growing Beef Heifers � 316 heifers, 2 locations, 2 years, 5.3 – 5.7 BCS � Prairie hay drylot for 200 d � 15% 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 ADG � Bromegrass pasture 21% CP, 66% TDN � Supplement 0 – 0.75% BW – CGM (control), DDGS, or corn oil � DDGS 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 pigs � Up to 20% (high levels may reduce pork fat quality) � Gestating sows � Up to 50% � Lactating sows � Up 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 cattle � Inclusion over 40% of diet may reduce performance, carcass traits � Watch for over-conditioning of growing heifers From: Klopfenstein, UNL 2001; Tjerdes and Wright SDSU 2002
DDGS Value ($/T) in Swine Finishing Diets Corn ($/Bu): 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 SBM ($/t) 175 $109 $ 119 $ 128 $ 138 200 $ 120 $ 130 $ 140 $ 150 225 $ 131 $ 141 $ 151 $ 161 Max price without changing cost of complete diet From: Stein, Univ. Illinois
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/UIP � Supply all P required, watch Ca:P ratio � Low starch means less chance of rumen upset � Watch for high S intake, feed plus water sources � Transportation 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
Recommend
More recommend
