Livestock Perspectives on Bio-energy co-products

Feeding DDGS to IN Livestock SpecieDiet inclusiontons / year Swine10%274,950 Dairy20%263,000 Repl. Heifers30% 70,000 Poultry10%177,390 Beef/cow-calfvar. 47,477 TOTAL832,817 Est. production of DDGS = 1.4 M tons 60%

DDGS Nutritional Issues 1.Variability in available amino acids –Lys digestibility range = 60 to 84% –Novus Intl. in vitro assay (r 2 = 0.88)

Amino Acid Digestibility (%) Novus Intl., 2006

High Dig. Lys. Low Dig. Lys.

DDGS Nutritional Issues 1.Variability in available amino acids –Lys digestibility range = 60 to 84% 2.Variability in available energy –ME ranges between 2629 to 2981 kcal/kg 3.Variability in phosphorus Total P, %Available P, % total P Corn0.320 to 30% DDGS to 80%

DDGS Nutritional Issues 4.Variability in sodium content (corn=0.02%) –0.05 to 0.17% Typical diet = 0.18% 5.Pelleting – molasses “balls” from solubles cause “gumming” of dies reducing throughput and pellet durability 6.INCONSISTENCY (w/in & between plants) 7.Mycotoxins (concentrated 3X) 8.Sulfur content (0.4 to 0.8 vs corn = 0.12)

SBM vs DDGS DDGS contains 62% of the protein of SBM SBM = 44 or 48DDGS = 27 DDGS contains 30% of the total lysine of SBM SBM = 2.83DDGS = 0.84 DDGS contains 16% of the available lysine SBM = 2.41DDGS = 0.39

Feed Manufacturing Issues Flow rates (handling / transportation) Bridging- bad with high inclusion rates Particle size? ( 600 um) Separation/settling issues? Pelletability? Wet feeding - spoilage

Other Issues / Unknowns with DDGS Effect on Animal Performance (including reproductive performance) ? Effect on Product Quality ?

Other Issues / Unknowns with DDGS Effect on Animal Performance (including reproductive performance) ? Effect on Product Quality ? Effect on Nutrient Management ? Producer Education

Processing Methods or Technologies 1.Conventional dry grind

gal of Ethanol One bushel of Corn Corn Dry Grind Facility lbs of DDGS Ruminant Feed Co-products in Dry Grind Corn Process V. Singh, UIUC Nonruminant Food

Processing Methods or Technologies 1.Conventional dry grind 2.Modified dry grind – recovers germ and pericarp fiber with a horizontal drum degerminator 3.Quick germ quick fiber – recovers germ and pericarp fiber by soaking corn in water for 6 to 12 hours with alpha-amylase

Coproducts from Modified Dry Grind and Quick Germ Quick Fiber Processes One bushel Corn Corn Dry Grind Facility 2.6 gal Ethanol 7.0 lb Residual DDGS Ruminant Food Dry Degerm Defiber Process Nonruminant Food 4 lb Germ 4 lb Pericarp Fiber + V. Singh, UIUC

Effect of Processing Technology on Nutrient Content of DDGS (%) 1 ConventionalModified Quick germ Component dry grinddry grind quick fiber Protein Fat1496 Fiber (TDF) Lysine Phosphorus, % dry matter basis. Parsons et al., 2006

Processing Methods or Technologies 1.Conventional dry grind 2.Modified dry grind – recovers germ and pericarp fiber with a horizontal drum degerminator 3.Quick germ quick fiber – recovers germ and pericarp fiber by soaking corn in water for 6 to 12 hours with alpha-amylase 4.Enzymatic Dry Grind (E-Mill) – uses enzymes to recover additional endosperm fiber

Coproducts from Enzymatic Dry Grind (E-Mill) One bushel Corn Corn Dry Grind Facility 2.6 gal Ethanol 3.7 lb Residual DDGS Ruminant Food Quick Germ Quick Fiber Nonruminant Food E-Mill 3.3 lb Germ 4 lb Pericar p Fiber 4 lb Endosper m Fiber V. Singh, UIUC

Overall Issues with DDGS Product Variation Handling, Storage, Transportation Effect on Animal Performance Effect on Product Quality Effect on Nutrient Management Producer Education

Glycerol from Bio-diesel ~ 10% of production What to do with off-spec for human / industrial use? Can use up to 10% in diets (CHO energy +) Purity vs. cost? Pellet binder? Change in animal fat composition / amount Handling issues?

Helpful Resources