Utilization of byproducts by growing & finishing cattle
G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students
0123456789
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
Year
Eth
anol
, bil
lion
gal
lon
sEach bushel of corn yields approximately:
• 1/3 EtOH• 1/3 CO2
• 1/3 Distillers byproducts
Ethanol Plants & Fed Cattle Population
Use
• Inclusion < 15% (2-3 lb): protein
• Inclusion > 15% (4+ lb): energy
DRY MILLING-WDG(+S)CORN
GRIND, WET, COOK
FERMENTATION
YEAST, ENZYMES
STILL ALCOHOL & CO2
STILLAGE
DISTILLERS GRAINSWDG, DDG
DISTILLERS SOLUBLESWDGSDDGS
Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE
y = -0.0007x2 + 0.043x + 3.6604
R2 = 0.914
y = 0.0005x2 - 0.0406x + 6.5271
R2 = 0.8867
2.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Level of diet DM (WDG)
Per
form
ance
ADG
F:G
Efficiency value
Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep. and 2005 Midwest ASAS
y = -0.0006x2 + 0.0292x + 3.3054
R2 = 0.8625
y = 0.0006x2 - 0.0389x + 6.3466
R2 = 0.6988
2.53.03.54.04.55.05.56.06.57.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Level of diet DM (DDGS)
Per
form
ance
ADGF:G
Efficiency value
Buckner et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep.
UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS Effect on Carcass CharacteristicsEffect on Carcass Characteristics
Virgil Bremer,Virgil Bremer,Galen EricksonGalen Erickson && Terry KlopfensteinTerry Klopfenstein
UNL Studies Used
Experiment Year Diet DM % WDGS Hd/TxSindt et al. 1990 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Larson et al. 1991 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40Ham et al. 1992 0, 40 32Fanning et al. 1997 0, 30 20Vander Pol et al. 2002 0, 20, 40 10Vander Pol et al. 2004 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 48Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50Corrigan et al. 2005 0, 15, 27.5, 40 40Luebbe et al. 2005 0, 15, 30 32
Materials and Methods of Trials• Diet % WDGS (DM basis)
• 5-7.5 % DM roughage in diet
• Calves and Yearlings– Predominantly black crossbred steers
• 34 treatment means (n= 1257 hd)
• USDA called Quality grade on 500 = Small0
• Calculated YG used (n= 873) except when LM area unknown (n= 384)
Average Daily Gain
y = -0.0005x2 + 0.0279x + 3.4669
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Diet DM % WDGS
AD
G (
lb)
Intercept
WDGS Level ADG (lb)0 3.47
10 3.7020 3.8330 3.8740 3.8150 3.66
Predicted Values
cov. P = 0.03 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P < 0.01
Feed Conversion
y = 0.0003x2 - 0.0309x + 6.4367
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Diet DM % WDGS
F:G
(lb
/lb) WDGS Level F:G
0 6.4410 6.1620 5.9530 5.8140 5.7450 5.73
Predicted Values
Interceptcov. P = 0.04 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.09
12th Rib Fat Depthy = -8E-05x2 + 0.0039x + 0.4912
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Diet DM % WDGS
12th R
ib F
at (
in)
WDGS Level FAT0 0.49
10 0.5220 0.5430 0.5440 0.5250 0.49
Predicted Values
Interceptcov. P = 0.02 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.04
Marbling Score
y = -0.0277x2 + 1.3078x + 517.53
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Diet DM % WDGS
Mar
blin
g S
core
500 = Small0
WDGS Level Marbling 0 518
10 52820 53330 53240 52650 514
Predicted Values
Intercept Slopecov. P = 0.08 cov. P = 0.09 L P = 0.05≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.05
WET MILLING-CGF
CORNSTEEP
WASH WATERGRIND
SEPARATION
WET CORN GLUTEN FEED
STARCH, SWEETNER, ALCOHOLGLUTEN MEALCORN OIL
STEEP CORN BRAN
DRY CORN GLUTEN FEED
SEM, screenings, dist solubles
Cargill wet milling, Blair, NE
UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF Effect on Carcass CharacteristicsEffect on Carcass Characteristics
Virgil Bremer,Virgil Bremer,Galen EricksonGalen Erickson && Terry KlopfensteinTerry Klopfenstein
UNL Studies Used
Experiment Year Diet DM % Sweet Bran Hd/Tx
Richards et al. 1993 0, 25 40
Scott et al. 1995 0, 10, 21, 38 40
Herold et al. 1996 0, 38 40
Scott et al. 1999 0, 32 60
Scott et al. 1999 0, 22 48
Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50
Losa et al. 2005 0, 30 72
Materials and Methods of Trials• Diets 0-40 % Sweet Bran® (DM basis)
• DRC, HMC, or DRC:HMC control diet
• 7-7.5 % DM roughage in diet
• Calves and Yearlings– Predominantly black crossbred steers
• 18 treatment means (n= 880 hd)
• USDA called Quality grade on 500 = Small0
Average Daily Gain
y = 0.0126x + 3.6689
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Diet DM % WCGF
AD
G (
lb)
Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P < 0.01≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.67
Feed Conversion
y = -0.0053x + 5.9566
012345678
0 10 20 30 40 50
Diet DM % WCGF
F:G
(lb
/lb)
Interceptcov. P = 0.05 L P = 0.03≠ 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.48
WDGS WCGF
Fat 11 - 13 2.5 –3.5
How do we use more?
Fat limits WDGS to 40%Sulfur is a concernFeed combination of byproducts
Feed "new" distillers products
0102030405060708090
100
0 25 50 75
WDGS
WCGF
BP (50:50 Blend)
(%D
M)
WCGF/WDGS combination
Loza et al., 2003
3.99
4.63 4.56
3.9
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 25 50 75
BP
ADG
WCGF/WDGS combination
Loza et al., 2003
5.995.685.71
6.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 25 50 75
Feed Conversion
Q = <0.05
L = 0.32BP (%DM)
Loza et al., 2003
WCGF/WDGS combination
New Economic Models for Performance
Crystal Buckner, Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein, Darrell Mark
Economics for WDGS
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50WDGS Level
Re
turn
($
/hd
)
0 miles30 miles60 miles100 miles
Corn at $3.50/bu; WDGS at 95% of corn price; miles are distance from ethanol plant to feedlot
-$143.19
Issues• Byproducts will be here• Improve performance• Not negative on quality (related to performance)• Don't forget about WCGF• Dry byproducts are different• Distillers grains will not be created equal• Energy content better than corn
Reasons For Feeding DGWith Forage
• Crude Protein
• Undegradable Protein
• Energy
• P
• No Negative Assoc. Effects?
• “One Size Fits All”?
DDGS Summary
DDGS, lb/d
0 4 7.5
Grazing yrl. 1.60 2.13 2.49Penned calvesa 1.62 2.34 2.97Economics -- $1.94 $1.41aOne lb DDGS replaced .5 lb forage.
ADG
y = -0.03x2 + 0.43x + 0.26
R2 = 0.99 P < 0.01 SE = 0.08
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7DDGS (lb)
lbStalk Grazing
1.25 2.75 4.25 5.75
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
Max. Gain = 1.88 lb/dStandard Error = 0.10
Slope = 0.245Standard Error = 0.016
Level WCGF
Ga
in, l
b/d
ay
Daily gain of steers supplemented with wet corn gluten feed on cornstalks.
Byp
rod
uct
s
• WDGS, modified (45% DM) • WDGS, traditional (35% DM)• WDG• DDGS (25% solubles)• DDG• Syrup, distillers solubles, CCDS• Dakota Bran• WCGF (45% DM)• WCGF-Sweet Bran (60% DM)• DCGF• Corn germ• Steep
Feed Forms of “Regular” Distillers Grains
Baga Bunker
Grass hay, % 15.0 (6.5) 30-40 (17.0)Wheat straw, % 12.5 (5.5) 25-32 (13)Alfalfa hay, % 22.5 (10.2) 45-55Dry distillers grains,% 50 (28) ---Corn gluten feed, % 60 (53.8) ---
a300 PSI.Wet distillers grains at 35% dry matter 65% moistureRed percentages are “as-fed” basis Adams et al. University of Nebraska
Wet Distillers Grains plus Solubles Ingredient Combinations When Stored in a Silo Bag or Bunker Silo,Percentages are on a Dry Matter Basis
Bunker Silo of 60% WDG:40% StrawUsing Mixer Wagon to Blend covered w/ Plastic
Bunker Silo 82% Modified Distillers:18% HaySilage – Covered with Plastic and Hay
Issues• Storage, handling, feeding challenges• WDGS (35% DM)
• bunker with forage• bag with forage
• Modified WDGS• bag on its own• bunker with forage
• WCGF• bag on its own• bunker with covering
Issues• Can you pile them and cover?• DDGS
• pellet at ~95%• cube at ~70%• meal?
• Biggest challenge is delivery• current research area
• Should be economical! PRICE DM!
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50
Ph
os
ph
oru
s (
% D
M)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50
Ph
os
ph
oru
s (
% D
M)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50
Ph
os
ph
oru
s (
% D
M)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50
Ph
os
ph
oru
s (
% D
M)
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50
Ph
os
ph
oru
s (
%D
M)
Pho
spho
rus
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50
Ph
osp
ho
rus (
%D
M)
Intake
Excretion
Intake-Retention=Excretion
Excretion in feces & urine
Retained nutrients
10-15%
• Excretion numbers using ASABE std approach
AVG MIN MAXDiet P, % 0.31 0.25 0.50*
P Excretion 7.0 lb 4.6 lb 14.1 lb“old” std 13.9 lb
Diet CP, % 13.3 12.0 20.5*
N Excretion 64 lb 57 lb 104 lb
150 days fed for an "average" steer
Impact of DGS on excretion
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
N intake N excrete N manure N volatilize
lb p
er a
nim
al
0 WDGS
30 WDGSP<0.01
P<0.01
P<0.01
P=0.07
Impact of DGS on N challenge
N mass balance
.27
.35
.52
.59
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
85% corn 85% corn +supplement
byproduct byproduct +supplement
% d
iet P
(D
M-b
asi
s)
mineral P
base diet
NRC
Dietary P in Feedlot Diets
Impact of DGS on P challenge
.27
.35
.52
.59
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
85% corn 85% corn +supplement
byproduct byproduct +supplement
% d
iet P
(D
M-b
asi
s)
mineral P
base diet
NRC
Our data
Impact of DGS on P challenge
Dietary P in Feedlot Diets
Relationship between P intake and manure harvested P (kg/hd/d) for cattle lots.
y = 1.03x - 0.011
R2 = 0.31
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070
P Intake (kg/hd/d)
Ma
nu
re P
(k
g/h
d/d
)
P Intake kg and Manure P kgLinear (P Intake kg and Manure P kg)
Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report
Dietary P effect on manure
Impact of DGS on P challenge
Feedlot size (hd): 2500 10,000 25,000
0 byp 0.30 P 1,320 5,300 13,200
20 byp 0.40 P 1,900 7,600 19,000
40 byp 0.50 P 2,500 10,000 25,000
Assumes: 50% of land area accessible185 bu corn, corn-soybean rotation, ~35 lb P per acre (80 lb P2O5)
Land Requirements, 4yr P basis (acres)
Kissinger et al., 2006 NE Beef Report
Impact of DGS on P challenge
CONTACT: Galen Erickson PH: 402 [email protected] http://beef.unl.edu
Acknowledge: Abengoa Bioenergy Dakota Gold ResearchNebraska Corn Board Chief EthanolCargill Wet Milling US Bio Platte Valley