Use of Distillers Grains (Wet & Dry) in Flaked Corn Diets for - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Use of Distiller’s Grains (Wet & Dry) in Flaked Corn Diets for Finishing Beef Cattle R.B. Hicks 1 , C.J. Richards 1 , and P.K. Camfield 2 1 Oklahoma State University 2 Oklahoma Panhandle State University

Introduction ● The majority of the research evaluating the use of distiller’s grains in feedlot rations has been done with dry-rolled corn (DRC) or high-moisture corn (HMC) based diets in the northern Great Plains, whereas, most feedyards in the southern Great Plains feed steam-flaked corn (SFC) based diets. ● In general, research data suggests that the use of WDGS in DRC or HMC based diets improves performance, whereas, the use of WDSG in SFC based diets has little effect on performance or may decrease performance. ● With the anticipated construction of ethanol plants in the southern Great Plains and thus, increased availability of distiller’s grains, additional research evaluating the use of increasing levels of WDGS in SFC diets is needed.

Objectives ● Determine effects of feeding levels of wet distiller’s grains plus solubles (WDGS) in steam flaked corn diets. ● Compare a lower level of WDGS to a similar level of dry distiller’s grains plus solubles (DDGS) that is representative of current feeding practices in the region.

Experimental Procedures ● 207 hd of mixed yearling steers (882 lb) were received at Henry C Hitch Feedyard on April 17 (157 hd) and 21 (50 hd). ● On April 30, 180 steers were sorted off from the original 207 hd based on weight and visual appraisal to be used in the trial. ● 180 yearling steers were received at OPREC research facilities on May 3.

Experimental Procedures ● Steers were blocked by weight (6 blocks) an allotted to 30 pens with 6 head/pen. ● Diet Treatments (DM basis): 1) Steam flaked corn control (28 lb/bu) 2) 10% DDGS 3) 10% WDGS Replaced corn 4) 20% WDGS 5) 30% WDGS

Ration Profile ● All diets contained 8% ground alfalfa and 7.5% pelleted supplement Treatment CP, % Urea, % Control 13.0 1.00 10% DDGS 13.0 0.53 10% WDGS 13.0 0.52 20% WDGS 14.6 0.30 30% WDGS 16.2 0.10 ● All diets were formulated to meet 105% of estimated DIP requirement.

● Received 6 loads of WDGS (~70/30 corn/sorghum) from Oakley, KS on April 16 & 17 ● Stored in plastic silage bag

Average Nutrient Profile of 6 loads 34.6% dry matter 32.8% crude protein 19% ADF 0.80% phosphorus 0.05% calcium 0.75% sulfur

Initial Weights of Blocks ● 812, 857, 881, 911, 943, and 988 lb ● Average of 899 lb

● Each pen is ~14 ft wide & 55 ft long ● Feed bunks are ~11 to 11.5 ft wide

Experimental Procedures ● Data collected: � Performance data � Carcass data ● Based on live weight and visual appraisal, blocks of cattle were shipped to an Excel Beef slaughter facility in Dodge City, KS, when the block was expected to have an average back fat thickness of 0.5 inches. � 101 days for two blocks Average of � 130 days for three blocks 123 days � 143 days for last block

Statistical Analysis ● Analyzed as randomized complete block design using MIXED procedure of SAS ● Pen was experimental unit ● Model statement included the fixed effect of treatment and the random effect of block ● Pre-planned contrasts: � Linear levels of WDSG (0, 10, 20, & 30%) � Quadratic level of WDSG � 10% DDGS vs 10% WDGS � Control vs 10% DDGS

Effect of DGS on Final Weight Final Wt Carcass Adj Final Wt 1400 1382 1382 1375 1375 Final Weight, lb 1371 1371 1350 1353 1351 1349 1348 1300 1250 1200 Control 10% Dry 10% Wet 20% Wet 30% Wet Feed Treatment Live Adj Treatment Difference: P = 0.114 0.330 Wet Linear: P = 0.085

Effect of DGS on DMI 24 Dry Matter Intake, lb 23.46 22 23.19 23.01 22.71 22.67 20 18 16 14 12 10 Control 10% Dry 10% Wet 20% Wet 30% Wet Feed Treatment Treatment Difference: P =0.573

Effect of DGS on ADG Live ADG Carcass Adj ADG 4.0 Average Daily Gain, lb 3.96 3.93 3.90 3.90 3.87 3.85 3.6 3.74 3.74 3.69 3.69 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.0 Control 10% Dry 10% Wet 20% Wet 30% Wet Feed Treatment Live Adj Treatment Difference: P = 0.154 0.474 Wet Linear: P = 0.141

Effect of DGS on Feed/Gain F/G Carcass Adj F/G 7.0 6.5 Feed/Gain 6.0 6.25 6.25 6.09 6.08 6.03 6.00 5.94 5.94 5.90 5.5 5.79 5.0 4.5 4.0 Control 10% Dry 10% Wet 20% Wet 30% Wet Feed Treatment Live Adj Treatment Difference: P = 0.061 0.324 Wet Linear: P = 0.047

Carcass Data 10% Level of WDGS Control DDGS 10% 20% 30% HCW 898 893 891 876 878 Dressing % 65.5 64.6 64.8 65.1 64.8 Fat Thickness, in 0.53 0.50 0.51 0.54 0.52 KPH 2.36 2.48 2.15 2.36 2.46 REA, sq in 14.24 14.10 14.62 13.59 13.70 Yield Grade 3.15 3.13 2.91 3.30 3.27

Effect of DGS on Marbling MS: 300 = slight; 400 = small 440 420 Marbling Score* 416 400 400 380 384 381 378 360 340 320 300 Control 10% Dry 10% Wet 20% Wet 30% Wet Feed Treatment Treatment Difference: P = 0.031 Control vs 10% D: P = 0.017

Effect of DGS on Percent Choice 70 60 Percent Choice 59.4 50 40 38.9 30 36.1 30.6 20 25.0 10 0 Control 10% Dry 10% Wet 20% Wet 30% Wet Feed Treatment Treatment Difference: P = 0.061 10% DDGS vs 10% WDGS: P = 0.082 Control vs 10% DDGS: P = 0.052

Summary ● No statistically significant differences in performance were noted. ● However, observed numerical trends were similar to that observed by other researchers. � Optimum level of wet distiller’s grains appears to be ~10% in steam flaked corn rations � Increasing levels of wet distiller’s grains reduce performance (ADG and feed efficiency) ● 10% DDGS improved marbling ● Levels of WDSG up to 30% have no effect on marbling or resulting USDA quality grade.

Questions?