Animal Nutrition and Alternative Feedstocks · Distillers By-Products ¾Wet Distiller’s Grains...
Transcript of 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