Corn Replacement: Coproducts & Ag Residues Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein, & many students.

Corn Replacement: Coproducts& Ag Residues

Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein, & many students

Byp

rod

uct

s

• WDGS, modified (45% DM) • WDGS, traditional (35% DM)• DDGS, (90% DM)• Syrup, distillers solubles, CCDS

• WCGF (45% DM)• WCGF-Sweet Bran (60% DM)• DCGF• Steep• Synergy

• “new” distillers grains

Meta-Analysis of UsingDistillers Grains

Virgil Bremer, Terry Klopfenstein & Galen Erickson

WDGS Meta- Analysis

• 20 feedlot trials at UNL

• 3,365 steers, 350 pens

• WDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC

• Levels of WDGS up to 50% DM.

Average Daily Gain

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

0 10 20 30 40 50

Ave

rag

e D

ail

y G

ain

, lb

s./

da

y

Diet DM % WDGS

y = -0.001x2 + 0.0868x + 15.458

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

0 10 20 30 40

g o

f G

ain

/10

0 g

Fe

ed

Diet DM % WDGS

WDGS Feed Efficiency

150 143 136 130Feeding Value, % of Corn

y = -5E-05x2 + 0.0039x + 0.4834

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 10 20 30 40

Fa

t T

hic

kn

es

s, i

n.

Diet DM % WDGS

WDGS 12th Rib Fat

0.52 0.54 0.55 0.550.48

y = -0.0263x2 + 0.9719x + 528.04400

450

500

550

600

650

700

0 10 20 30 40

Ma

rbli

ng

Sc

ore

, 5

00

= S

ma

ll 0

Diet DM % WDGS

WDGS Marbling Score

y = -0.0263x2 + 0.9719x + 528.04

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

0 10 20 30 40

Ma

rbli

ng

Sc

ore

, 5

00

= S

ma

ll 0

Diet DM % WDGS

535 537 534 525528

MDGS Meta- Analysis


• 680 steers, 85 pens

• MDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC


DDGS Meta- Analysis


• 581 steers, 66 pens

• DDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC


0.140

0.150

0.160

0.170

0 10 20 30 40

Feed

Effi

cien

cy

Diet DM % DGS

DDGS (90% DM)MDGS (46% DM)WDGS (32% DM)

DGS Feeding Value(% of DRC & HMC Blend)

10 20 30 40WDGS 148 145 137 131MDGS 128 124 121 117DDGS 107 110 111 112

Diet DM % DGS

WDGS MDGS DDGS SEM P-value

Performance1

DMI, lb/d 24.8a 26.4b 27.1b0.07 < 0.01

ADG, lb 4.11 4.17 4.05 0.3 0.30

F:G 6.06a 6.33b 6.67c <0.01

Carcass Characteristics2

HCW, lb 882 887 877 6 0.52

Marbling Score 610 599 602 9 0.69

12th rib fat, in 0.63 0.64 0.60 0.1 0.15

LM area, in2 13.3 13.2 13.4 0.15 0.50

a,b,c Means with different superscripts differ (P - value < 0.05).1 DMI - Dry matter intake; ADG - Average daily gain; G:F - gain per lb of feed.2 HCW - Hot carcass wt.; Marbling Score: 400 - slight, 500 - small, 600 - Modest, 700 - Moderate, 800 - Slightly Abundant.

Nuttelman et al., 2011 Beef Report

Dry, Modified, Wet

Spring 2010

$3.30/bu corn50 miles hauling

DDGS: $100/ tonMDGS: $46/ tonWDGS: $34/ ton

Effect of Drying Costs on DGS



Current Prices



Do we have to feedgrain?

4 WCGF:WDGS combination experiments (Loza, Loza, Buckner, Benton)

2 experiments with >60% WDGS (Wilken, Rich)

Feeding straight WCGF or Sweet Bran

High Levels of Wet Corn Gluten Feed (ADM)

DRC 17.5% 35.0% 52.5% 70.0% 87.5%Item Control WCGF WCGF WCGF WCGF WCGF

ADG 3.45 3.58 3.74 3.59 3.56 3.39DMI 22.81 23.58 23.83 23.71 22.71 22.53Feed/gain 6.59 6.56 6.36 6.61 6.37 6.64

0102030405060708090

100

0 25 50 75

WDGS

WCGF

BP (50:50 Blend)

(%D

M)

Loza et al., 2003

Sweet Bran/WDGS combination

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

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


0102030405060708090

100

0 45 60

WCGF

MDGS

BP (% DM)

(%D

M)

Benton et al., 2009

ADM Synergy concept

MDGS (%DM): 30 30 30 P-Value

WCGF (%DM): 0 15 30 Lin Quad

DMI, lb/d 22.3 22.5 22.0 0.15 0.04

ADG, lb 4.03 4.05 3.86 <0.01 <0.01

F:G 5.52 5.54 5.70 <0.01 0.13

Feedlot Performance

Benton et al., 2009

ADM Synergy concept

MDGS (%DM): 30 30 30 P-Value

WCGF (%DM): 0 15 30 Lin Quad

HCW, lb 837 839 818 <0.01 <0.01

LM area, in2 14.1 14.0 14.2 0.81 0.35

12th rib fat, in 0.56 0.58 0.53 0.10 0.07

Marbling score1 511 512 487 0.03 0.15

≥Choice, % 51.6 53.6 41.6 0.11 0.19

Yield Grade 2.97 3.05 2.79 0.02 0.01

1Marbling score: 400 = Slight, 450 = Slight 50, 500 = Small 0, etc.

Carcass Characteristics

Benton et al., 2009

ADM Synergy concept

Corn 82.5 43.8 - - 21.9 -WDGS - 43.8 65.6 43.8 32.8 32.8Sweet Bran - - - 43.8 32.8 32.8Soyhulls - - - - - 21.9Grass - - 21.9 - - -

Molasses 5.0 - - - - -Alfalfa 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5Supplement 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

High amounts of combination

TRT: 83% corn 44DG: 66DG: 44DG: 33DG: 33DG:-corn -hay 44GF 33GF 33GF

-corn -hulls

Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.

DMI 26.1 25.2 26.6 24.8 26.1 25.8

ADG 4.03 4.47 4.03 3.97 4.16 3.73

F:G 6.48bc 5.65a 6.61c 6.26b 6.28b 6.93d

PEM, n 0 0 0 5 0 2

F:G P = 0.06 for WDG-hay and soyhulls

TRT: 83% corn 44DG: 66DG: 44DG: 33DG: 33DG:-corn -hay 44GF 33GF 33GF

-corn -hulls


High amounts of combination

0102030405060708090

100

83 corn 44 DG-corn 66 DG-hay

$, s

teer

rela

tive to c

orn 65-$3.50

75-$3.5085-$3.50

Higher DGS-$


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

83 corn 44 DG-corn 66 DG-hay

$, s

teer

rela

tive to c

orn 65-$5.50

75-$5.5085-$5.50

Higher DGS-$


DMI 22.6 22.9 20.2 19.1 17.8 18.2 19.6

ADG 3.60 4.33 3.65 3.57 2.88 2.49 3.07

F:G 6.29 5.29 5.52 5.38 6.17 7.30 6.37

DOF, n 183 183 183 183 225 225 225

Fat depth 0.42 0.61 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.27 0.50

Higher DGS

TRT: 83% corn 40DG 70DG 77DG 85DG 70DG 77DGcorn 8straw 9straw 10straw 25straw 17straw

Rich et al., 2011 Beef Report

DMI 22.6 22.9 20.2 19.1 17.8 18.2 19.6

ADG 3.60b 4.33a 3.65b 3.57b 2.88d 2.49e 3.07c

F:G 6.29c 5.29a 5.52b 5.38ab 6.17c 7.30d 6.37c

DOF, n 183 183 183 183 225 225 225

Fat depth 0.42 0.61 0.48 0.43 0.43 0.27 0.50

Higher DGS

TRT: 0DG 40DG 70DG 77DG 85DG 70DG 77DG5straw 5straw 8straw 9straw 10straw 25straw 17straw83corn 40corn 17corn 9corn

Rich et al., 2011 Beef Report

http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/bioenergy/2008seminars

http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/bioenergy/10

http://beef.unl.edu/byproducts.shtml







Adam Shreck

Replacing corn with chemically treated forage in beef finishing diets

Use of chemical treatment to enhance digestibility

NaOH:• Anderson and Ralston, 1973• Garrett et al.,1976• Hogan and Weston, 1971• Jared and Donefer, 1970• Klopfenstein and Koers, 1973• Rexen and Thomsen, 1976• Rounds and Klopfenstein,1974• Saxena et al., 1971• Waller and Klopfenstein, 1975• Todorov, 1975

CaOH:• Rounds and Klopfenstein,1974• Waller and Klopfenstein, 1975• Waller et al., 1976• Lesoing et al., 1980

Digestibility:

NaOH > CaONaOH+ CaO = ↑NaOH

Experiments

• Optimize use of chemical treatments

• Factors:– DM– Chemical– Reaction Length– Ambient Temperature– Forage type– Plant part

Effects on DigestibilityIn Vitro

Exp 1.• 4X3X2 Factorial 4 reps• Chemical:

– Control– 5% CaO– 4% CaO 1% NaOH– 3% CaO 2% NaOH

• Residue– Cobs– Straw– Stover

• DM– 35%– 50%

IVDMD

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Control 5:00 4:01 3:02

Chemical Treatment CaO:NaOH %

Cobs

Straw

Stalks

IVDMD Part x Treatment

0 5:0 4:1 3:2CaO: NaOH, %:

Ingredient, % of DM Con Cobs Straw Stalks

DRC 46 36 36 36 36 36 36

Cobs-treated — 20 — — — — —

Straw-treated — — — 20 — — —

Stalks-treated — — — — — 20 —

Cobs-not treated 3.33 — 20 — — — —

Straw-not treated 3.33 — — — 20 — —

Stalks-not treated 3.33 — — — — — 20

WDGS 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

Supplement 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Table 1. Performance characteristics for Exp 1010.Corn Cobs Wheat Straw Corn Stover P-Value

Item Control Treated Native Treated Native Treated Native SE F1 T2 FxT3

DMI 25.81 25.36 25.66 25.83 25.29 26.11 25.06 0.32 0.97 0.11 0.12

ADG 3.78abc 3.73bcd 3.74bc 4.01a 3.55cd 3.83ab 3.49d 0.084 0.30 <0.01 0.01

F:G 6.85ab 6.80ab 6.85ab 6.45a 7.14b 6.82ab 7.19b 0.003 0.31 0.01 0.161Fixed effect of forage fraction2Fixed effect of chemical treatment3Forage fraction x chemical treatment interaction5Calculated as HCW/common dress (63%)6Pen weight before slaughterabcdWithin a row, values lacking common superscripts, differ (P<0.05)

Table 2. Carcass characteristics for Exp 1010.

Corn Cobs Wheat Straw Corn Stover P-Value

Item Control Treated Native Treated Native Treated Native SE F1 T2 FxT3

HCW 834bc 828bc 829bc 857a 811cd 841ab 805d 15.3 0.28 <0.01 <0.01

BF 0.53a 0.47bc 0.48bc 0.50ab 0.44c 0.53a 0.44c 0.018 0.79 <0.01 0.03

REA 12.96 13.03 13.41 13.49 13.20 13.13 12.72 0.221 0.10 0.5 0.10

Marbling4 517 507 516 508 484 501 494 9.4 0.12 0.25 0.14

Calc. YG 3.46 3.23 3.20 3.29 3.12 3.45 3.21 0.101 0.39 0.08 0.59

1Fixed effect of forage fraction

2Fixed effect of chemical treatment

3Forage fraction x chemical treatment interaction

4500=Small, 600=Modest

abcdWithin a row, values lacking common superscripts, differ (P<0.05)

Assume

• Calcium oxide $230/Ton– Supplement cost: $298 vs $250/T

• As-fed costs/ ton and DM ( ):– Ncobs: $58 (64.40)– TCobs $37.5 (75.00)– Nstraw: $58 (64.40)– Tstraw: $42.5 (85.00)– Nstalks: $58 (72.50)– Tstalks: $40 (80.00)

50% DM

Corn Price/$ bushel

$3.00 $4.50 $6.00

Control 0.00 0.00 0.00

NCobs 6.91 18.30 29.61

NStalks -13.32 -6.70 -0.16

NStraw -10.28 -2.08 6.04

TCobs 2.06 14.78 27.42TStalks -0.05 13.68 27.33

TStraw 17.37 35.80 54.16

Future Work

• Treated Stalks w/ MDGS

• 5% roughage in control

• 1” vs 3” grind size

• Increasing pen surface OM

• Response with calf-feds vs yearlings????????

Potential of Chemically Treated Corn Stover and Modified Distiller Grains as a Partial

Replacement for Corn Grain in Feedlot Diets

J. Russell, D. Loy and J. Anderson (ISU) and M. Cecava (ADM)

On-farm biomass pre-treatment• Stover chopped to reduce particle size and increase surface area.

• Treated with nothing or 5% wt:wt dry powder CaO and water to create Ca(OH)2

• Compressed and stored in plastic Ag bags, anaerobically for 30 days

• Used in cattle feeding trial with 210 steers. Cattle fed 183 or 195 days.

On-Farm Treatment Composition of Diets

Ingredient % DMCorn

RationCRF

Ration

Corn grain 70 35

Corn stover* 5 20

Modified distillers grains 20 40

Supplement 5 5*Corn Stover consisted of either

1)baled stover-ground;2) ag bag stover, no treatment; 3)ag bag stover with alkaline treatment. Cattle fed Grain Diet for entire trial, CRF Ration for entire trial or CRF Diet for 112 days and then Grain Diet to termination.

ADM AFR 09-20 Cattle Feeding Trial Iowa State University

“CRF”

Cattle Performance Response


30 bushels less corn versus high grain

control ration

30 bushels less corn versus high grain

control ration

a,b,c Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)

Feed Conversion


a

Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)a,b,c

Item Corn

Grower/Finish

CRF (bale) Grower

Corn finish

CRF (bagged NT ) Grower

Corn finish

CRF (bagged TRT) Grower

Corn finish

CRF(bale)

Grow/Finish

CRF(bagged NT )

Grow/Finish

CRF (bagged TRT )

Grow/Finish

Hot carcass wt, lb

837a 762b 788b,c 815a,c,d 794c 813a,c 823a,d

Dressing % 61.5a 59.1b 60.1b,c 60.7a,c 60.8a,c 60.6a,c 61.1a,c

Fat cover, in .53a.36b .33b .39b.c .36b,c .39c .49a

KPH, % 2.33a 1.82b 1.79b 2.05a,b 1.88b,c 1.92b,c 2.15a,c

REA, in2 13.54 13.18 13.18 13.45 13.63 13.93 13.49

Marbling score, (1000 = C-)

1088a 1006b 1025b 1027b 1008b 1028b 1027b

Yield grade 3.13a 2.44b 2.47b 2.67b 2.44b 2.50b 2.96a

Value $ 1,276.65 $ 1,135.71 $ 1,186.57 $ 1,225.74 $ 1,186.91 $ 1,215.42 $ 1,231.86

Carcass characteristics

a,b,c,d Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)

Economics (net return/steer) Ingredient DM

Cost/ton as fed or per bu

Baled Stover, ground 0.73 $ 55 Bagged, not-treated 0.68 $ 59 Bagged, treated 0.47 $ 51 Modified wet DG 0.50 $ 82 Corn 0.88 $ 6.00 Supplement 0.89 $ 400

Practical application

GrindingAdding CaOAdding WaterWeight measuresStorage options

Exothermic properties

Beef Extension Pagehttp://beef.unl.edu

Beef Reports

2011

http://beef.unl.edu/

Corn Replacement: Coproducts & Ag Residues Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein, & many students.

Documents

Transcript of Corn Replacement: Coproducts & Ag Residues Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein, & many students.