Animal Nutrition and Alternative Feedstocks Gerald Huntington - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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 DEa, 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

From: Stein, Univ. Illinois

a 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) 0.59 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 Lys, % 44 – 78 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 NRC (1998) Corn NRC (1998) Total P, % 0.78 Range 0.62-0.87 0.79 0.73 0.25 P Availability, % 90 Range 88-92 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)

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Daily Fecal Phosphorus Excretion, g/d Corn-SBM C-SBM + Phytase 20% DDGS 20% 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 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

• il

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 ($/Bu): SBM ($/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/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