Date post: | 22-May-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | duonghuong |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Energy Value of Feeding Distillers in a Forage Diet and
Feeding Fresh versus Stored Distillers
Terry Klopfenstein, B.L. Nuttelman, Crystal Buckner
Animal ScienceUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln
Reasons For Feeding DGWith Forage
• Crude Protein• Undegradable Protein• Energy• P• No Negative Assoc. Effects?• “One Size Fits All”?
Paradigm Shifts
• Use Protein for Energy• Use Excess UIP for DIP
Escape Protein ValuesSource % Protein escape
SBM 30
DWG 60-70%
DDG 60-70%
DS 30%
DDG Composition
Solubles Level, % (DM)Solubles Level, % (DM)aa
00 5.45.4 14.514.5 19.119.1 22.122.1
DM, %, % 95.595.5 92.192.1 90.890.8 89.389.3 89.689.6
CP, %CP, % 32.132.1 31.931.9 31.531.5 30.730.7 30.930.9
NDF, %NDF, % 36.836.8 34.934.9 31.931.9 30.330.3 29.329.3
Fat, %Fat, % 6.96.9 8.98.9 10.410.4 12.712.7 13.313.3aaSolubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0% solubles DDGSolubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0% solubles DDG
DDG Protein Digestion, % of Entering
Solubles level, % DMSolubles level, % DM
Item 0 5.4 14.5 19.1 22.1
Ruminal 17.6 22.9 28.1 22.9 30.9
Post-ruminal 96.6 96.5 97.0 97.1 97.0
Total-tract 97.2 97.4 97.9 97.9 97.9
Fat Intake, kg/dSolubles Level, %
DDG, % BW 0.0 5.4 14.5 19.1 22.1
0.25 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22
0.50 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33
0.75 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.40 0.43
1.00 0.31 0.37 0.41 0.48 0.49
Gain:FeedGain:FeedSolubles Level, %Solubles Level, %
DDG, % BWDDG, % BW 0.00.0 5.45.4 14.514.5 19.119.1 22.122.1
0.250.25 0.1570.157 0.1390.139 0.1250.125 0.1400.140 0.1390.139
0.500.50 0.1340.134 0.1430.143 0.1590.159 0.1420.142 0.1620.162
0.750.75 0.1520.152 0.1510.151 0.1560.156 0.1590.159 0.1480.148
1.001.00 0.1430.143 0.1540.154 0.1630.163 0.1520.152 0.1480.148
DRC or DDG Effects on DMI, NDF Rates and pH
Item Cont. DRC DDGDaily
DMIh, % BWa 1.88 1.69 1.69
DMIt, % BWa 1.88 2.10 2.09
NDF, %/hab 4.34 3.43 4.09
pHab 6.30 6.22 6.12aCont. vs Supplements, P< .05.bDDG vs DRC.
DDG energy (forage diet)
ADG, lb/dcorn .81 1.57 .05DDG .99 1.89 .05
F:Gcorn 15.9 9.8 .5DDG 12.8 8.0 .5
DDG ~18 - 30% of cornLoy et al., 2003 Nebraska Beef Report (in press)
LOW HIGH SEM
Introduction• Feedlot diets 100 – 140% energy value
of corn
• DDGS contains 118 to 130% energy value of corn in forage diets (Loy et al., 2003)
Objective
• Determine the energy value of WDGS in comparison to DRC in high forage diets
Materials and Methods Pen Study
• Treatments– DRC– WDGS
• NRC-predicted energy and MP requirements – Isocaloric– Isonitrogenous
• Targeted 2.25 lb ADG
Materials and Methods Pen Study Diet Formulation
• 35% Sorghum Silage
• 25% WDGS or 33.6 % DRC– WDGS 127% energy value of DRC
• Grass hay adjusted for WDGS and DRC
Materials and Methods Pen Study
• 160 crossbred steers (286 ± 18 kg)
• 67 d growing trial
• 10 pens (16 steers/pen)
DRC WDGSInitial BW, lb 629 629DMI, lb/d 18 17.6ADG, lb 2.71 2.88G:F .15 .16
ResultsPerformance
• NRC (1996) model• TDN values
– DRC – 83%– Grass Hay – 52%– SS – 65%
• DRC Net Energy adjusters 100%– WDGS 98.96% to account for increased
gain
ResultsEnergy Calculation
• WDGS 108% TDN
• 130% Estimated energy value of DRC– TDN values (108/83)
ResultsEnergy Calculation
2009 Individual Barn
• Compare energy value of WDGS to DRC at three different levels in high forage diets.
Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn
• 60 cross bred steers (509 ± 28 lb)
• Individually fed 85 d
• Matched pair feeding
• 108% TDN value for WDGS
• WDGS– 15, 25, or 35% inclusion level
• DRC– 22, 41, and 60% inclusion level
Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn
• 30% Sorghum silage
• Decreased Grass hay with increasing levels of WDGS or DRC
• Soypass and urea
Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn
Energy Value of WDGS
DMI 15.6 15.6 16.1 16.1 15.7 15.7ADG 1.84 1.98 2.32 2.56 2.47 2.70G:F .119 .128 .144 .159 .158 .172
Corn WDGS Corn WDGS CornWDGS
Low Medium High
• Low WDGS (15% )– 146% Feeding Value
• MED WDGS (25%)– 149% Feeding Value
• HIGH WDGS (35%)– 142% Feeding Value
ResultsIndividual Barn
Materials and Methods
240 yearling steers (BW = 229 ± 16 kg)
Backgrounding
Late fall to April 21 (144 d)
Supplemented 5 lb/hd/d WCGF
Smooth brome grazing
April 22 to May 11 (21 d)
Materials and MethodsSummer grazing
May 12 to September 23 (135 d)
Treatment groups
1. No supplementation (CON)
2. MDGS supplementation at 0.6% BW (SUPP)
Results
Item CON SUPP
Initial BW, lb 506 504
Spring BW, lb 695 693
Feedlot BW, lb 914a 1030b
ADG, lb/d 1.36a 2.20b
a,bMeans with different superscripts differ (P < 0.001).
Meta-analysis
Griffin et al., 2009Griffin et al., 2009
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
ADGCON = 0.62 kg/d
ADGSUPP = 1.00 kg/d
Wet vs Dry DGS
Individually fed 13, 25, 40% of diet Alfalfa + forage sorghum silage
Wet vs Dry DGS1
1Nuttelman.235% of diet by regression.3Value vs DDGS.
DMI, lb 17.0 15.4
ADG, lb 2.69 2.48
F:G 0.158 0.161 (+5%)3
DDGS2
WDGS2
Response to UIP or Fat in DDGS
• Corn gluten meal, UIP• Tallow, EE• Equivalent levels to DDGS
DGS vs Corn
130% ± energy of corn 117% TDN @ corn = 90% 108% TDN @ corn = 83% Fat UIP
Feeding Fresh vs Wet Ensiled
WDGS or Solubles and Residues
Solubles vs WDGS1
1Wilken.222.5% byproduct, 77.5% cornstalks.
DMI, lb 16.2 15.6
ADG, lb 1.04 1.25
F:G 15.5 12.5
Solubles2
WDGS2
Solubles vs WDGS1
1Peterson.235% byproduct stored with 65% straw.
DMI, lb 11.0 9.87
ADG, lb 1.10 .88
F:G 9.70 11.2
Solubles2
WDGS2
Ensiling WDGS with Cornstalks1
1Wilken.230% WDGS, 70% cornstalks.
DMI, lb 12.2 14.1
ADG, lb 1.02 1.43
F:G 11.95 9.83
Fresh2
Ensiled2
Effect of Ensiling WDGS and Straw1
1Peterson.240% WDGS, 60% straw, pair fed.3Different source of WDGS.
DMI, lb 9.50 9.37
ADG, lb 1.13 .97
F:G 8.64 10.6
Fresh2
Ensiled2,3
Bagging Effects1
DMI, lb 9.6 9.6 9.6ADG, lb 0.89a 1.07b 1.11b
G:F 0.092b 0.110b 0.115b
F:G 13.3a 9.76b 8.99b
Fresh Bagged Bagged+1
137.5% WDGS, 62.5% straw (DM).2Plus inoculum.a,bP<0.05.