Feeding Distillers Grains to BeefCattle in the Southern Plains: Texas Tech

University Results

M. L. Galyean

Department of Animal and Food Sciences

Feeding Distillers Grains to BeefCattle in the Southern Plains: Texas Tech

University Results

M. L. Galyean

Department of Animal and Food Sciences

TTU Contributions to the Distillers Grain Initiative

Corn and sorghum DG – Feeding trial results

Performance, carcass characteristics, and NE values

In vitro digestion and H2S production

System development

Results with corn and sorghum DG

Related research and upcoming studies

TTU Contributions to the Distillers Grain Initiative

Corn and sorghum DG – Feeding trial results

Performance, carcass characteristics, and NE values

In vitro digestion and H2S production

System development

Results with corn and sorghum DG

Related research and upcoming studies

OverviewOverview

Treatments

o Control – standard (SFC base) 90% concentrate

o C-15 – SFC base with 15% of DM as wet corn DG

o C-30 – SFC base with 30% of DM as wet corn DG

o S-15 – SFC base with 15% of DM as wet sorghum DG

o S-30 – SFC base with 30% of DM as wet sorghum DG

o B-15 – SFC base with 15% of DM as a 50:50 corn:sorghum DG blend

o B-30 – SFC base with 30% of DM as a 50:50 corn:sorghum DG blend

All diets balanced for total fat

Treatments

o Control – standard (SFC base) 90% concentrate

o C-15 – SFC base with 15% of DM as wet corn DG

o C-30 – SFC base with 30% of DM as wet corn DG

o S-15 – SFC base with 15% of DM as wet sorghum DG

o S-30 – SFC base with 30% of DM as wet sorghum DG

o B-15 – SFC base with 15% of DM as a 50:50 corn:sorghum DG blend

o B-30 – SFC base with 30% of DM as a 50:50 corn:sorghum DG blend

All diets balanced for total fat

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– TreatmentsTreatments

Wet corn DG from Quality Distillers Grain, Hereford, TX

Wet sorghum DG from Abengoa Bioenergy (Portales, NM) and Levelland/Hockley County Ethanol, LLC (Levelland, TX) – source change for final 30 d

Both sources of DG stored in silage bags (tarp wrap in commoditybarn for last 30 d with sorghum DG)

Corn and sorghum DG during the experiment averaged 31.2 and 28.7%, respectively (standard deviation = 1.49 and 0.98%, respectively).

Wet corn DG from Quality Distillers Grain, Hereford, TX

Wet sorghum DG from Abengoa Bioenergy (Portales, NM) and Levelland/Hockley County Ethanol, LLC (Levelland, TX) – source change for final 30 d

Both sources of DG stored in silage bags (tarp wrap in commoditybarn for last 30 d with sorghum DG)

Corn and sorghum DG during the experiment averaged 31.2 and 28.7%, respectively (standard deviation = 1.49 and 0.98%, respectively).

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Wet Distillers GrainWet Distillers Grain

224 steers received from Southwestern Missouri in January 2008

Approximately 75% Angus or Angus x Hereford; remainder Red Angus, Charolais, or Charolais cross

Arrival BW = approximately 530 lb; pre-vaccinated – minor health problems

Standard receiving period, followed by group-housing with limited intake of a 75% concentrate diet (to gain 2 lb/d) for approximately 8 wk; switched to 80% concentrate 10 d before starting experiment

Blocked by BW (average initial BW = 862 lb)

Assigned to pens (7 pens/block) – trial began May 8, 2008

224 steers received from Southwestern Missouri in January 2008

Approximately 75% Angus or Angus x Hereford; remainder Red Angus, Charolais, or Charolais cross

Arrival BW = approximately 530 lb; pre-vaccinated – minor health problems

Standard receiving period, followed by group-housing with limited intake of a 75% concentrate diet (to gain 2 lb/d) for approximately 8 wk; switched to 80% concentrate 10 d before starting experiment

Blocked by BW (average initial BW = 862 lb)

Assigned to pens (7 pens/block) – trial began May 8, 2008

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Cattle and ProceduresCattle and Procedures

BW measured initially and on d 35, 70, and before shipment to slaughter

Blocks 1 through 3, 4 through 6, 7, and 8 were on feed for 165, 137, 123, and 96 d, respectively – average = 140.6 d on feed

Carcass data collected at slaughter:

HCW, LM area, KPH, 12th rib fat, marbling and maturity scores

Calculated yield grade; quality grade based on marbling call

Diet samples collected weekly – composite samples analyzed

BW measured initially and on d 35, 70, and before shipment to slaughter

Blocks 1 through 3, 4 through 6, 7, and 8 were on feed for 165, 137, 123, and 96 d, respectively – average = 140.6 d on feed

Carcass data collected at slaughter:

HCW, LM area, KPH, 12th rib fat, marbling and maturity scores

Calculated yield grade; quality grade based on marbling call

Diet samples collected weekly – composite samples analyzed

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Cattle and ProceduresCattle and Procedures

Diet NEm and NEg concentrations calculated from performance

NRC feed NE values were “adjusted” for deviation of performance-based values from calculated values (≈ 98%)

Adjusted NE contribution from all feeds besides DG were determined

Performance-based NE value minus contribution from non-DG feeds divided by % of DG in diet = NE value of DG

Diet NEm and NEg concentrations calculated from performance

NRC feed NE values were “adjusted” for deviation of performance-based values from calculated values (≈ 98%)

Adjusted NE contribution from all feeds besides DG were determined

Performance-based NE value minus contribution from non-DG feeds divided by % of DG in diet = NE value of DG

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Calculations and StatisticsCalculations and Statistics

Randomized complete block design for performance and carcass data

Contrasts used to evaluate treatment means:

Standard SFC diet vs. the average of DG diets

Corn DG vs. the average of sorghum DG and blend DG

Sorghum DG vs. blend DG

15 vs. 30% DG

Interactions of level with other DG contrasts

Randomized complete block design for performance and carcass data

Contrasts used to evaluate treatment means:

Standard SFC diet vs. the average of DG diets

Corn DG vs. the average of sorghum DG and blend DG

Sorghum DG vs. blend DG

15 vs. 30% DG

Interactions of level with other DG contrasts

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Calculations and StatisticsCalculations and Statistics

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Diet Ingredient CompositionDiet Ingredient Composition

TreatmentIngredient Control C-15 C-30 S-15 S-30 B-15 B-30

Steam-flaked corn 72.87 69.21 56.03 69.34 55.91 69.31 55.98

Wet corn DG - 15.02 30.01 - - 7.51 15.04

Wet sorghum DG - - - 14.75 29.58 7.37 14.75

Alfalfa hay, ground 5.13 5.13 5.12 5.15 5.16 5.13 5.14

Cottonseed hulls 5.13 5.13 5.13 5.15 5.16 5.14 5.15

Cottonseed meal 5.50 - - - - - -

Urea 0.90 0.51 0.11 0.40 0.10 0.45 0.09

Fat 3.05 1.41 - 1.66 0.52 1.50 0.24

Molasses 4.01 - - - - - -

Limestone 0.90 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.10

MIN-AD 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Supplement 2.01 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.02 2.00 2.01

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– BW DataBW Data

Treatment

Item Control C-15 C-30 S-15 S-30 B-15 B-30 SE Contrast

Initial BW, lb 861.9 867.1 861.3 866.0 861.6 859.1 859.9 20.96 NS

Final BW, lb 1,341.7 1,322.7 1,297.1 1,323.1 1,295.1 1,309.7 1,287.6 16.39 C*, L*

Adjusted final BW, lb 1,352.3 1,325.7 1,305.5 1,320.3 1,297.3 1,306.8 1,271.7 17.40 C*, L*

Contrasts: C = Control vs. others; L = 15 vs. 30% DG; NS = not significant, P > 0.10.* = P ≤ 0.05.

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Overall Shrunk ADGOverall Shrunk ADG

Control vs. others, P ≤ 0.05ADG, lb

Treatment

3.40

3.243.13

3.27

3.09 3.173.08

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Overall DMIOverall DMI

Control vs. others, 0.05< P ≤ 0.10S vs. B, P ≤ 0.05DMI, lb/d

Treatment

21.60

20.2820.60

21.4120.97

19.9820.50

SE = 0.502

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Overall G:FOverall G:F

15 vs. 30% DG, P ≤ 0.05G:F

Treatment

0.157 0.160 0.152 0.153 0.148 0.159 0.150

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Diet NEmDiet NEmC vs. S and B, P ≤ 0.05S vs. B, P ≤ 0.0515 vs. 30% DG, P ≤ 0.05

NEm, Mcal/cwt

Treatment

94.8

98.0

94.393.4

92.5

97.5

93.9

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Diet NEgDiet NEgC vs. S and B, P ≤ 0.05S vs. B, P ≤ 0.0515 vs. 30%, P ≤ 0.05

NEg, Mcal/cwt

Treatment

64.4

67.1

64.463.5

62.6

67.1

63.9

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Carcass DataCarcass Data

Treatment

Item Control C-15 C-30 S-15 S-30 B-15 B-30 SE Contrast

Hot carcass weight, lb 879.4 862.1 849.0 858.6 843.7 849.8 827.0 11.31 C*, L*

Dressing percent 62.94 62.57 62.87 62.28 62.34 62.33 61.66 0.348 C†, S*

LM area, sq. in. 12.75 13.04 12.59 13.04 12.46 12.47 12.42 0.227 L*

12th rib fat, in. 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.36 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.025 C*

KPH, % 2.52 2.26 2.32 2.57 2.78 2.61 2.47 0.141 S*

Yield grade 3.33 2.97 2.99 3.00 3.23 3.15 3.01 0.116 C*, BI†

Marbling score 418.8 422.9 414.3 415.4 418.7 401.0 414.0 13.88 NS

Choice or greater, % 56.25 56.25 62.50 52.08 59.38 47.92 66.67 - NS

Select or less, % 43.75 43.75 37.50 47.92 40.62 52.08 33.33 - NS

Abscessed livers, % 3.13 9.38 3.13 0.00 6.25 0.00 9.38 - NS

Contrasts: C = Control vs. others; S = average of C vs. the average of S and B; L = 15 vs. 30% DG; BI = interaction of S vs. B with level; NS = not significant , P > 0.10.* = P ≤ 0.05; † = 0.05< P ≤ 0.10.

Feeding Trial Feeding Trial –– Relative NEg valuesRelative NEg values

Based on substitution calculations, dietary NEg (Mcal/cwt) values for DG sources would be:

Wet corn DG at 15% = 84.8 (118.5% of SF corn)

Wet corn DG at 30% = 71.7 (100% of SF corn)

Wet sorghum DG at 15% = 58.5 (81.7% of SF corn)

Wet sorghum DG at 30% = 63.9 (89.5% of SF corn)

Wet blend DG at 15% = 83.9 (117% of SF corn)

Wet blend DG at 30% = 69.4 (96.7% of SF corn)

Based on substitution calculations, dietary NEg (Mcal/cwt) values for DG sources would be:

Wet corn DG at 15% = 84.8 (118.5% of SF corn)

Wet corn DG at 30% = 71.7 (100% of SF corn)

Wet sorghum DG at 15% = 58.5 (81.7% of SF corn)

Wet sorghum DG at 30% = 63.9 (89.5% of SF corn)

Wet blend DG at 15% = 83.9 (117% of SF corn)

Wet blend DG at 30% = 69.4 (96.7% of SF corn)

FYI – Concurrent study – essentially the same diet and sources of DG and cattle – at 15% of DM wet corn DG = 77.1% value of SF corn!

In Vitro HIn Vitro H22S Trial S Trial –– Development of MethodsDevelopment of Methods

Increased S concentration in wet corn DG – concerns with production of H2S in the gastrointestinal tract

Corn and sorghum DG used in feeding trial = 0.59 and 0.66% S, respectively

Objectives:

Develop a repeatable in vitro system for determining how DG source and level affect ruminal H2S production

Determine effects of wet DG source and level on rate and extent of in vitro DM disappearance

Used basic in vitro techniques with slight modifications

Increased S concentration in wet corn DG – concerns with production of H2S in the gastrointestinal tract

Corn and sorghum DG used in feeding trial = 0.59 and 0.66% S, respectively

Objectives:

Develop a repeatable in vitro system for determining how DG source and level affect ruminal H2S production

Determine effects of wet DG source and level on rate and extent of in vitro DM disappearance

Used basic in vitro techniques with slight modifications

In Vitro HIn Vitro H22S Trial S Trial –– MethodsMethods

All in vitro studies – 2 ruminally cannulated steers fed a 75% concentrate (SF corn base) diet – no DG and no Rumensin/Tylan

Ruminal fluid collected approximately 4 h after feeding

Treatment substrates evaluated:

Control – SF corn, cottonseed meal, urea, corn oil

C-15 – corn DG at 15% of DM

C-30 – corn DG at 30% of DM

S-15 – sorghum DG at 15% of DM

S-30 – sorghum DG at 30% of DM

All substrates balanced for fat and degradable intake protein

All in vitro studies – 2 ruminally cannulated steers fed a 75% concentrate (SF corn base) diet – no DG and no Rumensin/Tylan

Ruminal fluid collected approximately 4 h after feeding

Treatment substrates evaluated:

Control – SF corn, cottonseed meal, urea, corn oil

C-15 – corn DG at 15% of DM

C-30 – corn DG at 30% of DM

S-15 – sorghum DG at 15% of DM

S-30 – sorghum DG at 30% of DM

All substrates balanced for fat and degradable intake protein

In Vitro HIn Vitro H22S Trial S Trial –– SubstratesSubstrates

*Wet corn and sorghum DG were air-dried at room temperature before use

TreatmentIngredient Control C-15 C-30 S-15 S-30

Steam-flaked corn 88.16 77.87 69.43 77.63 68.98Wet corn DG* - 15.00 30.00 - -Wet sorghum DG* - - - 15.00 30.00Cottonseed meal 8.00 5.00 - 5.00 -Urea 0.89 0.66 0.57 0.62 0.50Corn oil 2.95 1.47 - 1.75 0.52

Analyzed % S, DM basis 0.13 0.19 0.29 0.22 0.31

In Vitro HIn Vitro H22S Trial S Trial –– MethodsMethodsIVDMD – 24-h buffer:ruminal fluid (3:1) incubation, followed by 48-h pepsin digest

Duplicate tubes per run – 3 runs

Rate of digestion tracked with Ankom wireless gas pressure monitoring system

Duplicate flasks per run – 3 runs

Curves fitted to modified Gompertz equation to estimate lag (L),rate (k), and maximum extent (M); area under curve calculated

Total gas production and H2S measurements

Sealed 125-mL vials for fermentation – (3:1) buffer:ruminal fluid –duplicate vials in 2 runs

Gas production by water displacement

H2S in headspace gas – N-N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine method

IVDMD – 24-h buffer:ruminal fluid (3:1) incubation, followed by 48-h pepsin digest

Duplicate tubes per run – 3 runs

Rate of digestion tracked with Ankom wireless gas pressure monitoring system

Duplicate flasks per run – 3 runs

Curves fitted to modified Gompertz equation to estimate lag (L),rate (k), and maximum extent (M); area under curve calculated

Total gas production and H2S measurements

Sealed 125-mL vials for fermentation – (3:1) buffer:ruminal fluid –duplicate vials in 2 runs

Gas production by water displacement

H2S in headspace gas – N-N-dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine method

In Vitro HIn Vitro H22S Trial S Trial –– MethodsMethods

Collection of ruminal fluid

Standard IVDMD

Sealed vial gas production system

Measurement of gas production

In Vitro HIn Vitro H22S Trial S Trial –– MethodsMethods

Measurement of H2S in gas

Ankom wireless gas pressure recording system

In Vitro HIn Vitro H22S, IVDMD, and Gas Production S, IVDMD, and Gas Production

Treatment

Item Control C-15 C-30 S-15 S-30 SE ContrastH2S, µmoles/g of fermentable DM 3.54 5.09 7.57 5.68 7.36 0.39 C*, L*

IVDMD, % 70.34 67.35 64.59 64.31 62.93 3.30 C*, S*, L*

Gas production, mL/gof fermentable DM 314.2 325.6 328.8 337.8 331.0 3.3 C*, S†

Contrasts: C = Control vs. others; S = average of C-15 and C-30 vs. average of S-15 and S-30; L = 15 vs. 30% DG; NS = not significant , P > 0.10.* = P ≤ 0.05; † = 0.05< P ≤ 0.10.

In Vitro Gas Production KineticsIn Vitro Gas Production Kinetics

Contrasts: C = Control vs. others; S = average of C-15 and C-30 vs. average of S-15 and S-30; L = 15 vs. 30% DG; NS = not significant , P > 0.10.* P ≤ 0.05.

TreatmentItem Control C-15 C-30 S-15 S-30 SE Contrast

k, min-1 0.0111 0.0104 0.0098 0.0094 0.0092 0.0006 C*, S*

lag, min 50.84 45.47 49.64 28.09 61.20 10.47 NS

M, mL 178.4 175.2 170.9 165.6 160.6 8.0 NS

AUC, mL × min 141,795 137,248 130,093 127,768 120,023 4,952 C*, S*, L*

ConclusionsConclusions

All DG sources resulted in lower DMI and ADG than the standard SFC diet

Only DG level affected G:F

NEg values of wet corn DG and 50:50 blend of corn and sorghum DG were equal to or greater than SF corn, but NEg for wet sorghum DG was less

IVDMD and rate of gas production were less with corn and sorghumDG than with a SF corn-based substrate

Corn > sorghum DG

15 > 30% DG for IVDMD and AUC

Corn and sorghum DG increased in vitro H2S production

H2S production increased with increasing DG level – values followed expectations from S concentration

All DG sources resulted in lower DMI and ADG than the standard SFC diet

Only DG level affected G:F

NEg values of wet corn DG and 50:50 blend of corn and sorghum DG were equal to or greater than SF corn, but NEg for wet sorghum DG was less

IVDMD and rate of gas production were less with corn and sorghumDG than with a SF corn-based substrate

Corn > sorghum DG

15 > 30% DG for IVDMD and AUC

Corn and sorghum DG increased in vitro H2S production

H2S production increased with increasing DG level – values followed expectations from S concentration

Related and Upcoming ResearchRelated and Upcoming Research

Currently analyzing samples from digestion study with Control, C-15, and S-15 diets

9 steers/treatment – conducted during feeding study

Measurements of DM, OM, N, and fiber digestibility

Feeding trial planned for Spring 2009

Control diet, 15 and 30% wet corn DG, 3 roughage levels (7.5, 10, and 12.5% alfalfa hay)

Currently analyzing samples from digestion study with Control, C-15, and S-15 diets

9 steers/treatment – conducted during feeding study

Measurements of DM, OM, N, and fiber digestibility

Feeding trial planned for Spring 2009

Control diet, 15 and 30% wet corn DG, 3 roughage levels (7.5, 10, and 12.5% alfalfa hay)

Thank you!Thank you!