nutritional characteristics and feeding recommendations for...
TRANSCRIPT
Nutritional Characteristics and Feeding Recommendations for Corn Distiller’s By-Products
Dr. Jerry ShursonProfessorDept. of Animal ScienceUniversity of Minnesota
What is DDGS?By-product of the dry-milling ethanol industry
Nutrient composition is different between dry-mill, wet-mill and beverage alcohol by-products
DDGS – fuel ethanolDDGS - whiskey distilleriesCorn gluten feed – wet millCorn gluten meal – wet millBrewer’s dried grains – beer manufacturing
Nutrient content depends on the grain source usedCorn DDGS - Midwestern USWheat DDGS - CanadaSorghum (milo) DDGS - Great Plains USBarley DDGS
Comparison of Nutrient Composition (Dry Matter Basis) of “New Generation” DDGS to Corn Gluten Feed, Corn Gluten Meal,Corn Germ Meal, and Brewer’s Dried Grains
0.210.170.080.540.80Available P, %
0.350.330.060.240.06Ca, %
0.280.220.340.080.24Trp, %
1.031.222.310.821.13Thr, %
0.490.671.590.390.55Met, %
1.171.001.130.700.83Lys, %
21303222425628943827ME, kcal/kg
2283No data469433224011DE, kcal/kg
52.9No data9.737.043.6NDF, %
7.91.13.23.310.7Fat, %
28.822.266.923.930.6Protein, %
Brewer’s Dried Grains (NRC)
Corn Germ Meal (Feedstuffs)
Corn Gluten Meal (NRC)
Corn Gluten Feed (NRC)
“New Generation”Corn DDGS (UM)
By-Products from Dry-Mill Ethanol Plants
Distiller’s grainsWet – 30 to 35% DMDry – 90 to 92% DM
Condensed distiller’s solublesWet – 30 to 32% DM (variable)Dry – 99% DM (new spray drying process developed at U of M)
Distiller’s dried grains with solublesWet – 30 to 35% DMDried – 88 to 90% DM (most common by-product)
CornCorn Dry-Milling Process Overview
alpha amylase enzyme
CO2
Yeast andGlucoamylaseEnzyme
whole stillage
thin stillage
coarse solids
Feed Industry Co-products
Corn Cleaning
Hammermill Mix SlurryLiquefaction
Cooker
Centrifuge Evaporator
Fermentation
Dist illat ion
Ethyl Alcohol
Cond. DistillersSolubles
Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles
Distillers Wet Grains
Rotary Dryer
Dry-Milling Average Ethanol Yield Per Bushel of Corn
Ethanol 2.7 gal.DDGS 18 lbs.CO2 18 lbs.
Under Construction or proposed
Ethanol Plants
Ethanol Plants in North America - June 16, 2004
320,000900,000
1,800,000
3,000,0003,500,000
7,000,000
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
5000000
6000000
7000000
Met
ric T
ons
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Est 2005
U.S. DDGS Production
Source: Steve Markham – Commodity Specialists Company
U.S. DDGS Consumption
60%
6%
4%
DairyBeefPoultry/Swine & Other
CSC 2004
45%
35%
5%
15%
DairyBeefPoultrySwine
Estimate 2001
46%
39%
4% 11%
DairyBeefPoultrySwineEstimate 2003
Estimate 2002
What Are the Challenges?1. No grading system to differentiate quality and price2. Inconsistent quality
nutrient contentcolorparticle size
3. System to directly connect customers to suppliers
4. Misrepresenting quality and nutrient specifications and blending DDGS with other ingredients
5. Flowability
DDGS Varies Nutrient Content and Digestibility, Color, and Particle Size Among U.S. Sources
Samples of Golden Corn DDGS from Various Midwestern U.S. Ethanol Plants
VeraSun - Aurora, SD CVEC - Benson, MN Al-Corn - Claremont, MN MGP – Lakota, IA
CMEC - Little Falls, MN Agri-Energy - Luverne, MN LSCP - Marcus, IA DENCO – Morris, MN
Comparison of Nutrient Composition (Dry Matter Basis) of “New Generation” DDGS to Other “DDGS Sources”
0.620.720.680.890.780.77P, %0.170.220.510.060.120.07Ca, %
No data0.390.250.230.180.25Trp, %No data2.501.131.041.011.17Thr, %No data0.610.660.540.540.62Met, %No data1.670.830.900.610.92Lys, %No data37493560No data35773781ME, kcal/kg*No dataNo data3796No data38084053DE, kcal/kg*
4.285.567.304.585.296.93Ash, %No data14.4420.9517.9111.8012.37ADF, %
15.107.787.77No data7.906.25Crude fiber, %9.0013.338.9615.253.5211.32Fat, %27.034.4430.1231.6229.3231.82Protein, %
AGPPelleted
Extruded DDGS/Soy (XDS Plus)
ADM - PeoriaBadger State
EthanolSolulac
“New Generation”Corn DDGS
*Calculated energy values for swine
Potential Categories of Distiller’s By-Products
Spray Dried Distiller’s Solubles
Corn/Wheat Blends
Golden LixDDGS Blends
High Fat/High Protein DDGS
Solulac High ADF and Ca, Reduced Energy for
Monogastrics
Distiller’s By-Products
Corn DDGS< 75% solublesadded to grains
Wet Distiller’s GrainsCorn DDGS
> 75% solubles added to grains
Dakota Gold
DDGS/Soy Hull Blends
Corn -BeverageDistilleries
Corn/Sorghum Blends
Corn Condensed Distiller’s Solubles
Proximate Analysis of “New Generation”DDGS(100% Dry Matter Basis)
11.2ADF, %
42.8NFE, %
7.8Ash, %
6.2Crude fiber, %
11.5Fat, %
31.6Crude protein, %
89.2Dry matter, %
“New Generation” DDGSNutrient
Comparison of Amino Acid Composition of DDGS (88% dry matter basis)
1.271.12 (8.1)1.29 (6.6)Phenylalanine, %0.980.88 (9.1)0.99 (8.7)Isoleucine, %2.432.61 (12.4)3.12 (6.4)Leucine, %0.650.54 (15.2)0.67 (7.8)Histidine, %1.070.81 (18.7)1.06 (9.1)Arginine, %1.231.22 (2.3)1.32 (7.2)Valine, %0.240.17 (19.8)0.22 (6.7)Tryptophan, %0.890.86 (7.3)0.99 (6.4)Threonine, %0.480.44 (4.5)0.63 (13.6)Methionine, %0.590.47 (26.5)0.75 (17.3)Lysine, %
DDGS (NRC, 1998)
“Old” DDGS“New” DDGS
Values in ( ) are CV’s among plants
Composition of Distiller’s Grains for Cattle
Nutrient % of DMCrude Protein 30-36
RUP, % of CP 47-57NEL, Mcal/lb 1.00Fat, % 9.8ADF, % 19.0NDF, % 38.0Ca, % 0.15P, % 0.83
Energy Value of DDGS for RuminantsGood Quality DDGS contains:
7-11% more energy than “book values”10-20% more energy than corn
NEL= 1.00 Mcal/lbNEM = 1.06 Mcal/lb NEG = 0.73 Mcal/lbTDN = 94%DE = 1.84 Mcal/lbME = 1.64 Mcal/lb
Protein in Distiller’s Grains
> 30% of DM and more than old “book values”- Similar for DDG & DDGS
Good source of Ruminally Undegradable Protein (~55% RUP)
- RUP is slightly less for wet vs. dried DDG
Protein quality- Fairly good quality- Lysine is the first limiting amino acid
“Old Generation” vs. “New Generation”DDGS
High Quality,Highly DigestibleDDGS
Lower Quality,Less DigestibleDDGS
Corn DDGS Color and Smell are Indicators of Digestibility for Monogastrics
Color varies among sourcesranges from dark to golden (Cromwell et al., 1993)
golden color of corn DDGS is correlated with higher amino acid digestibility in swine and poultry
Smell varies among sourcesranges from burnt or smoky to sweet and fermented (Cromwell et al., 1993)
golden DDGS has a sweet, fermented smell
smell may affect palatability
Fig. 1. Regression of digestible lys (%) and color (L*, b*)
R2 = 0.71
R2 = 0.74
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
Lys (%)
L*, b
* sc
ore L*
b*Linear (L*)Linear (b*)
The Use of DDGS in Swine Diets
DDGS Feeding Value for Swine
Energy value of golden sources comparable to corn
High available P – reduces manure P
Adding 10% DDGS to finishing diets reduces the length, severity, and prevalence of ileitis lesions in a moderate disease challenge
Feeding a 50% DDGS diet in gestation and 20% DDGS diet in lactation may increase litter size
Maximum Inclusion Rates of “New Generation” DDGS in Swine Diets (Based Upon University of Minnesota Performance Trials)
Nursery pigs (> 7 kg)Up to 25 %
Grow-finish pigsUp to 20% (higher levels may reduce pork fat quality)
Gestating sowsUp to 50%
Lactating sowsUp to 20%
Assumptions: no mycotoxinsformulate on a digestible amino acid and available phosphorus basis
Comparison of DE and ME Estimates of DDGS (88% DM)
No data2.673.45NRC (1998)
2.423.25No dataHanor-Hubbard-Ajinomoto (2004)4
2.453.13 – 3.593.73KSU – “Old Generation” (2004)3
2.613.49 – 3.703.87KSU – New Generation (2004)2
No data3.103.41U of M – Old Generation (1999)1
No data3.373.49U of M – New Generation (1999)
NE, Mcal/kgME, Mcal/kgDE, Mcal/kg
1 Calculated values2 Determined by growth and metabolism trials (source Dakota Gold)3 Not DDGS but corn gluten from a NE ethanol plant4 Determined by growth trials (source Dakota Gold)
G-F Trial Procedures (Fu et al. 2004)
DDGS source – Dakota Gold
Used 256 barrows (initial wt.= 28.5 kg)
92 d feeding period
5 phase feeding program
Diets contained 0, 10, 20, or 30% DDGS
Formulated on a equivalent ileal digestible lysine and isocaloric basis
Contained 0.15% (phase 1-4) or 0.10% (phase 5) L-lysine HCl to keep digestible threonine, tryptophan, and sulfur amino acids > the control diets
Effect of DDGS Inclusion Rate on ADG, ADFI, and G/F for 92-d Grow-Finish Period
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
ADG ADFI G/F
Control10% DDGS20% DDGS30% DDGS
Fu et al. (2004)
Effect of Adding 10% DDGS to Grow-Finish Diets on ADG, ADFI, and F/G for a 64 d Grow-Finish Period
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
4
ADG ADFI F/G
Corn/SBM10% DDGS
Lawrence (2003) – Hubbard Milling Commercial Feeding Trial
Effect of DDGS Inclusion Rate on Carcass Characteristics (Fu et al. 2004)
Increasing dietary DDGS level:Linearly decreased carcass weightNo effect on backfatNo effect on loin depthNo effect on % carcass leanNo effect on carcass yield
Grow-Finish Pigs Fed Diets Containing DDGS
No DDGS 10% DDGSPigs in 993 988Pigs Out 979 971Daily Gain, lb 1.63 1.62Feed:Gain 2.75 2.74Feed cost, $/hd $32.69 $32.53
Source: Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed
Typical Grow-Finish Pig Performance in a 1000 Head Commercial Finishing Barn
13,56313,887Total head1194.822.761.742.33259.251.5Averages
Farm 3:8,5458,798Total head
1245.002.861.752.88265.247.2AveragesFarm 2:
23,85224,676Total head1134.792.791.713.35253.058.7Averages
Farm 1:DaysADCF/GADGDLWt outWt in# out# in
Actual Close-Outs on Commercial Swine Finishing Operations
Source: Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed
% Lean, BF, % Yield
51.0052.0053.0054.0055.0056.0057.0058.0059.0060.0061.0062.0063.0064.0065.0066.0067.0068.0069.0070.0071.0072.0073.0074.0075.0076.0077.0078.00
01/01/200201/15/200201/29/200202/12/200202/26/200203/12/200203/26/200204/09/200204/23/200205/07/200205/21/200206/04/200206/18/200207/02/200207/16/200207/30/200208/13/200208/27/200209/10/200209/24/200210/08/200210/22/200211/05/2002
Date
%
% Yield% LeanLinear (% Yield)Linear (% Lean)
Carcass Yield and % Lean of Pigs Fed 10% DDGS Diets on a Commercial Swine Operation in 2002
(10% DDGS was added to diets mid-year)
Source: Land O’ Lakes
Are There Components of Corn Distiller’s Solubles that Are Responsible for Enteric Health Benefits?
Residual Solubles
Yeast Cream
Condensed Distiller’s Solubles
Spray Dried Distiller’s Solubles
(DS)
Spray Dried Yeast Cream
(YC)
Spray Dried Residual Solubles
(RS)
Materials and Methods7 dietary treatments fed from day 0 to 10 post-weaning
NC = negative control
DS = spray dried distiller’s solubles15% of the diet
YC = spray dried yeast cream7.5% of the dietreplaced animal fat
RS = spray dried residual solubles15% of the diet
AB = carbadox50 g/ton
PP = spray dried porcine plasma6% of the diet
PC = spray dried porcine plasma + carbadox6% PP + 50 g/ton AB
Villi Height and Crypt Depth in the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine
050
100150200250300350400450
Villi Height, um Crypt Depth, um
NCDSYCRSABPPPC
a a a b a ab b
NC = negative controlDS = spray dried distiller’s solubles a, b = Least squares means with different superscripts are different (P < .05)YC = spray dried yeast creamRS = spray dried residual solublesAB = carbadoxPP = spray dried porcine plasmaPC = spray dried porcine plasma + carbadox
Villi Height:Crypt Depth Ratio in the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Height:Depth Ratio
NCDSYCRSABPPPC
a a ab b a ab b
NC = negative controlDS = spray dried distiller’s solubles a, b = Least squares means with different superscripts are different (P < .05)YC = spray dried yeast creamRS = spray dried residual solublesAB = carbadoxPP = spray dried porcine plasmaPC = spray dried porcine plasma + carbadox
Villi Measurements from the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine from a Pig Fed the Residual Solubles Diet (10X)
Villi Measurements from the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine from a Pig Fed the Carbadox Diet (10X)
The Use of DDGS in Dairy Rations
Is There a Difference When Feeding Whiskey or Fuel Ethanol Distillers Grains?
When milk production was compared between feeding DDGS from whiskey or fuel ethanol plants:
* Similar milk production * Higher production than when fed SBM* If DDGS was dark (heat damaged?):
- production was the same as when fed SBM
Florida Research (1995)
Wet vs. Dried Distiller’s Grains
Nutrient content of DM is the same for both
Considerations for Wet Distiller’s Grains:- Can usually store only 5-7 days- May need preservatives (e.g. propionic acid or other organic acids, etc.)
- Limited economical hauling distances - Rations may be too wet
- limit total DM intake, especially if ensiled forages are also fed
Production Response of Dairy Cows When Fed Distiller’s Grains
The same as, or greater than when fed SBM
Increased or no change when supplemented with protected lysine & methionine
Similar to when fed a blend of protein supplements (SBM, FM, DG)
How Much Distiller’s Grains Can be Fed to Dairy Cows?
Recommend max. of ~ 20% of ration DM- 10-13 lb/d of dried- 30-40 lb/d of wet
Usually no palatability problems
At 30% of DM:- May decrease DMI, especially if Wet CDG- May feed excess protein
Example Ration Considerations for Dairy CattleDiets containing 50:50 forage:concentrate
- If equal proportions of alfalfa & corn silage* DG can replace most or all protein supplement
- If mostly corn silage* More DG can be fed but may need some other
protein supplement (check Lysine and P levels)
- If mostly alfalfa* Less DG likely needed to supply diet CP
The Use of DDGS in Beef Rations
The Use of DDGS in Beef Rations
Nutritional Value of DDGS for Beef Cattle
Excellent protein source (28% crude protein)High by-pass proteinExcellent source of essential minerals (P and K)Improves rumen healthVery palatable1.8 times more value compared to soybean meal
Distiller’s Grains for Beef Cattle
As protein source6-15% of ration DM
As an energy sourcewhen fed at >15% of DMmay reduce acidosis because highly digestible fiber in place of starch
ADG and F/G usually better than with corn
Klopfenstein et al., University of Nebraska
Value of Nutrients in DDGS for Finishing Cattle
EnergyWet distiller’s grains – 110 to 125% energy of corn (DM basis)DDGS – 100% of corn (DM basis)
ProteinBy-pass > soybean mealWet = Dry is properly dried
FiberHigh fiber and low starch reduces fermentation rate
Safe ingredient to start cattle on finishing dietsReduces subacute acidosis
FatOil content limits the quantity fed (<40%)
PhosphorusNo value in corn-based finishing dietsValue as a supplement to low P forages
How Much Distiller’s By-Products Can Be Fed to Beef Cattle?
DDGS (90% DM)Feed to supply protein to meet requirement
< 20 % ration dry matter
Wet DGS (30% DM)Feed to supply protein and energy
Commonly fed at < 25% of ration dry matterGreatest value at 15 to 20% of ration dry matter
Can feed up to 40% of ration dry matterOverfeed protein and phosphorus
Wet Condensed Distiller’s Solubles (30% DM)Feed to supply protein and energy
Limit to < 10% of ration dry matter
Value of By-Products for Beef
$59 $23 $36 308030Distillers Syrup
$53 $23 $30 306630Distillers Grains, Wet
$151 $64 $87 286688Distillers Grains, Dry
$153 $54 $98 237291Cottonseed, Whole
$59 $21 $38 206340Corn Gluten Feed, Wet
$132 $47 $85 206390Corn Gluten Feed, Dry
$88 $21 $67 9.55286Corn Screenings
Value/tonValue/tonValue/tonCP %Mcal/cwtDM %Commodity
TotalProteinEnergyNEg
Maximum Value per Ton, delivered100% DM
75%286099.0$490 Feed Grade Urea per ton
25%53.46589.0$320 Hi Pro Soybean Meal per ton
9.56688.0$3.05Corn per bushel
$59 $23 $36 308030Distillers Syrup
$53 $23 $30 306630Distillers Grains, Wet
$151 $64 $87 286688Distillers Grains, Dry
$153 $54 $98 237291Cottonseed, Whole
$59 $21 $38 206340Corn Gluten Feed, Wet
$132 $47 $85 206390Corn Gluten Feed, Dry
$88 $21 $67 9.55286Corn Screenings
Value/tonValue/tonValue/tonCP %Mcal/cwtDM %Commodity
TotalProteinEnergyNEg
Maximum Value per Ton, delivered100% DM
75%286099.0$490 Feed Grade Urea per ton
25%53.46589.0$320 Hi Pro Soybean Meal per ton
9.56688.0$3.05Corn per bushel
Cost DM% NEg CP% Ratio
DDGS Relative Value Differs Depending on Species
$108.00Beef Feedlot
$96.34Swine G-F Diet
$104.66Layer Diet
$100.09Poultry Finisher
$114.24Dairy Lactation Assumptions:
•Corn $2.00 / bu
•SBM $175.00 / ton
•Urea $360.00 / ton
•Non-ruminant diets corn/SBM
•Ruminant diets typical diets with competing by-products.
Feed Dollars/ ton
Source: Tilstra, Land O’ Lakes
U of M DDGS Web Sitewww.ddgs.umn.edu
We have developed a DDGS web site featuring:* research summaries
- swine, poultry, dairy, & beef- DDGS quality
* presentations given* links to other DDGS related web sites* international audiences