Nutritional Characteristics and Feeding Recommendations for Corn Distiller’s By-Products

Dr. Jerry ShursonProfessorDept. of Animal ScienceUniversity of Minnesota

What is DDGS?By-product of the dry-milling ethanol industry

Nutrient composition is different between dry-mill, wet-mill and beverage alcohol by-products

DDGS – fuel ethanolDDGS - whiskey distilleriesCorn gluten feed – wet millCorn gluten meal – wet millBrewer’s dried grains – beer manufacturing

Nutrient content depends on the grain source usedCorn DDGS - Midwestern USWheat DDGS - CanadaSorghum (milo) DDGS - Great Plains USBarley DDGS

Comparison of Nutrient Composition (Dry Matter Basis) of “New Generation” DDGS to Corn Gluten Feed, Corn Gluten Meal,Corn Germ Meal, and Brewer’s Dried Grains

0.210.170.080.540.80Available P, %

0.350.330.060.240.06Ca, %

0.280.220.340.080.24Trp, %

1.031.222.310.821.13Thr, %

0.490.671.590.390.55Met, %

1.171.001.130.700.83Lys, %

21303222425628943827ME, kcal/kg

2283No data469433224011DE, kcal/kg

52.9No data9.737.043.6NDF, %

7.91.13.23.310.7Fat, %

28.822.266.923.930.6Protein, %

Brewer’s Dried Grains (NRC)

Corn Germ Meal (Feedstuffs)

Corn Gluten Meal (NRC)

Corn Gluten Feed (NRC)

“New Generation”Corn DDGS (UM)

By-Products from Dry-Mill Ethanol Plants

Distiller’s grainsWet – 30 to 35% DMDry – 90 to 92% DM

Condensed distiller’s solublesWet – 30 to 32% DM (variable)Dry – 99% DM (new spray drying process developed at U of M)

Distiller’s dried grains with solublesWet – 30 to 35% DMDried – 88 to 90% DM (most common by-product)

CornCorn Dry-Milling Process Overview

alpha amylase enzyme

CO2

Yeast andGlucoamylaseEnzyme

whole stillage

thin stillage

coarse solids

Feed Industry Co-products

Corn Cleaning

Hammermill Mix SlurryLiquefaction

Cooker

Centrifuge Evaporator

Fermentation

Dist illat ion

Ethyl Alcohol

Cond. DistillersSolubles

Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles

Distillers Wet Grains

Rotary Dryer

Dry-Milling Average Ethanol Yield Per Bushel of Corn

Ethanol 2.7 gal.DDGS 18 lbs.CO2 18 lbs.

Under Construction or proposed

Ethanol Plants

Ethanol Plants in North America - June 16, 2004

320,000900,000

1,800,000

3,000,0003,500,000

7,000,000

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

Met

ric T

ons

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Est 2005

U.S. DDGS Production

Source: Steve Markham – Commodity Specialists Company

U.S. DDGS Consumption

60%

6%

4%

DairyBeefPoultry/Swine & Other

CSC 2004

45%

35%

5%

15%

DairyBeefPoultrySwine

Estimate 2001

46%

39%

4% 11%

DairyBeefPoultrySwineEstimate 2003

Estimate 2002

What Are the Challenges?1. No grading system to differentiate quality and price2. Inconsistent quality

nutrient contentcolorparticle size

3. System to directly connect customers to suppliers

4. Misrepresenting quality and nutrient specifications and blending DDGS with other ingredients

5. Flowability

DDGS Varies Nutrient Content and Digestibility, Color, and Particle Size Among U.S. Sources

Samples of Golden Corn DDGS from Various Midwestern U.S. Ethanol Plants

VeraSun - Aurora, SD CVEC - Benson, MN Al-Corn - Claremont, MN MGP – Lakota, IA

CMEC - Little Falls, MN Agri-Energy - Luverne, MN LSCP - Marcus, IA DENCO – Morris, MN

Comparison of Nutrient Composition (Dry Matter Basis) of “New Generation” DDGS to Other “DDGS Sources”

0.620.720.680.890.780.77P, %0.170.220.510.060.120.07Ca, %

No data0.390.250.230.180.25Trp, %No data2.501.131.041.011.17Thr, %No data0.610.660.540.540.62Met, %No data1.670.830.900.610.92Lys, %No data37493560No data35773781ME, kcal/kg*No dataNo data3796No data38084053DE, kcal/kg*

4.285.567.304.585.296.93Ash, %No data14.4420.9517.9111.8012.37ADF, %

15.107.787.77No data7.906.25Crude fiber, %9.0013.338.9615.253.5211.32Fat, %27.034.4430.1231.6229.3231.82Protein, %

AGPPelleted

Extruded DDGS/Soy (XDS Plus)

ADM - PeoriaBadger State

EthanolSolulac

“New Generation”Corn DDGS

*Calculated energy values for swine

Potential Categories of Distiller’s By-Products

Spray Dried Distiller’s Solubles

Corn/Wheat Blends

Golden LixDDGS Blends

High Fat/High Protein DDGS

Solulac High ADF and Ca, Reduced Energy for

Monogastrics

Distiller’s By-Products

Corn DDGS< 75% solublesadded to grains

Wet Distiller’s GrainsCorn DDGS

> 75% solubles added to grains

Dakota Gold

DDGS/Soy Hull Blends

Corn -BeverageDistilleries

Corn/Sorghum Blends

Corn Condensed Distiller’s Solubles

Proximate Analysis of “New Generation”DDGS(100% Dry Matter Basis)

11.2ADF, %

42.8NFE, %

7.8Ash, %

6.2Crude fiber, %

11.5Fat, %

31.6Crude protein, %

89.2Dry matter, %

“New Generation” DDGSNutrient

Comparison of Amino Acid Composition of DDGS (88% dry matter basis)

1.271.12 (8.1)1.29 (6.6)Phenylalanine, %0.980.88 (9.1)0.99 (8.7)Isoleucine, %2.432.61 (12.4)3.12 (6.4)Leucine, %0.650.54 (15.2)0.67 (7.8)Histidine, %1.070.81 (18.7)1.06 (9.1)Arginine, %1.231.22 (2.3)1.32 (7.2)Valine, %0.240.17 (19.8)0.22 (6.7)Tryptophan, %0.890.86 (7.3)0.99 (6.4)Threonine, %0.480.44 (4.5)0.63 (13.6)Methionine, %0.590.47 (26.5)0.75 (17.3)Lysine, %

DDGS (NRC, 1998)

“Old” DDGS“New” DDGS

Values in ( ) are CV’s among plants

Composition of Distiller’s Grains for Cattle

Nutrient % of DMCrude Protein 30-36

RUP, % of CP 47-57NEL, Mcal/lb 1.00Fat, % 9.8ADF, % 19.0NDF, % 38.0Ca, % 0.15P, % 0.83

Energy Value of DDGS for RuminantsGood Quality DDGS contains:

7-11% more energy than “book values”10-20% more energy than corn

NEL= 1.00 Mcal/lbNEM = 1.06 Mcal/lb NEG = 0.73 Mcal/lbTDN = 94%DE = 1.84 Mcal/lbME = 1.64 Mcal/lb

Protein in Distiller’s Grains

> 30% of DM and more than old “book values”- Similar for DDG & DDGS

Good source of Ruminally Undegradable Protein (~55% RUP)

- RUP is slightly less for wet vs. dried DDG

Protein quality- Fairly good quality- Lysine is the first limiting amino acid

“Old Generation” vs. “New Generation”DDGS

High Quality,Highly DigestibleDDGS

Lower Quality,Less DigestibleDDGS

Corn DDGS Color and Smell are Indicators of Digestibility for Monogastrics

Color varies among sourcesranges from dark to golden (Cromwell et al., 1993)

golden color of corn DDGS is correlated with higher amino acid digestibility in swine and poultry

Smell varies among sourcesranges from burnt or smoky to sweet and fermented (Cromwell et al., 1993)

golden DDGS has a sweet, fermented smell

smell may affect palatability

Fig. 1. Regression of digestible lys (%) and color (L*, b*)

R2 = 0.71

R2 = 0.74

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

Lys (%)

L*, b

* sc

ore L*

b*Linear (L*)Linear (b*)

The Use of DDGS in Swine Diets

DDGS Feeding Value for Swine

Energy value of golden sources comparable to corn

High available P – reduces manure P

Adding 10% DDGS to finishing diets reduces the length, severity, and prevalence of ileitis lesions in a moderate disease challenge

Feeding a 50% DDGS diet in gestation and 20% DDGS diet in lactation may increase litter size

Maximum Inclusion Rates of “New Generation” DDGS in Swine Diets (Based Upon University of Minnesota Performance Trials)

Nursery pigs (> 7 kg)Up to 25 %

Grow-finish pigsUp to 20% (higher levels may reduce pork fat quality)

Gestating sowsUp to 50%

Lactating sowsUp to 20%

Assumptions: no mycotoxinsformulate on a digestible amino acid and available phosphorus basis

Comparison of DE and ME Estimates of DDGS (88% DM)

No data2.673.45NRC (1998)

2.423.25No dataHanor-Hubbard-Ajinomoto (2004)4

2.453.13 – 3.593.73KSU – “Old Generation” (2004)3

2.613.49 – 3.703.87KSU – New Generation (2004)2

No data3.103.41U of M – Old Generation (1999)1

No data3.373.49U of M – New Generation (1999)

NE, Mcal/kgME, Mcal/kgDE, Mcal/kg

1 Calculated values2 Determined by growth and metabolism trials (source Dakota Gold)3 Not DDGS but corn gluten from a NE ethanol plant4 Determined by growth trials (source Dakota Gold)

G-F Trial Procedures (Fu et al. 2004)

DDGS source – Dakota Gold

Used 256 barrows (initial wt.= 28.5 kg)

92 d feeding period

5 phase feeding program

Diets contained 0, 10, 20, or 30% DDGS

Formulated on a equivalent ileal digestible lysine and isocaloric basis

Contained 0.15% (phase 1-4) or 0.10% (phase 5) L-lysine HCl to keep digestible threonine, tryptophan, and sulfur amino acids > the control diets

Effect of DDGS Inclusion Rate on ADG, ADFI, and G/F for 92-d Grow-Finish Period

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

ADG ADFI G/F

Control10% DDGS20% DDGS30% DDGS

Fu et al. (2004)

Effect of Adding 10% DDGS to Grow-Finish Diets on ADG, ADFI, and F/G for a 64 d Grow-Finish Period

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

ADG ADFI F/G

Corn/SBM10% DDGS

Lawrence (2003) – Hubbard Milling Commercial Feeding Trial

Effect of DDGS Inclusion Rate on Carcass Characteristics (Fu et al. 2004)

Increasing dietary DDGS level:Linearly decreased carcass weightNo effect on backfatNo effect on loin depthNo effect on % carcass leanNo effect on carcass yield

Grow-Finish Pigs Fed Diets Containing DDGS

No DDGS 10% DDGSPigs in 993 988Pigs Out 979 971Daily Gain, lb 1.63 1.62Feed:Gain 2.75 2.74Feed cost, $/hd $32.69 $32.53

Source: Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed

Typical Grow-Finish Pig Performance in a 1000 Head Commercial Finishing Barn

13,56313,887Total head1194.822.761.742.33259.251.5Averages

Farm 3:8,5458,798Total head

1245.002.861.752.88265.247.2AveragesFarm 2:

23,85224,676Total head1134.792.791.713.35253.058.7Averages

Farm 1:DaysADCF/GADGDLWt outWt in# out# in

Actual Close-Outs on Commercial Swine Finishing Operations

Source: Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed

% Lean, BF, % Yield

51.0052.0053.0054.0055.0056.0057.0058.0059.0060.0061.0062.0063.0064.0065.0066.0067.0068.0069.0070.0071.0072.0073.0074.0075.0076.0077.0078.00

01/01/200201/15/200201/29/200202/12/200202/26/200203/12/200203/26/200204/09/200204/23/200205/07/200205/21/200206/04/200206/18/200207/02/200207/16/200207/30/200208/13/200208/27/200209/10/200209/24/200210/08/200210/22/200211/05/2002

Date

%

% Yield% LeanLinear (% Yield)Linear (% Lean)

Carcass Yield and % Lean of Pigs Fed 10% DDGS Diets on a Commercial Swine Operation in 2002

(10% DDGS was added to diets mid-year)

Source: Land O’ Lakes

Are There Components of Corn Distiller’s Solubles that Are Responsible for Enteric Health Benefits?

Residual Solubles

Yeast Cream

Condensed Distiller’s Solubles

Spray Dried Distiller’s Solubles

(DS)

Spray Dried Yeast Cream

(YC)

Spray Dried Residual Solubles

(RS)

Materials and Methods7 dietary treatments fed from day 0 to 10 post-weaning

NC = negative control

DS = spray dried distiller’s solubles15% of the diet

YC = spray dried yeast cream7.5% of the dietreplaced animal fat

RS = spray dried residual solubles15% of the diet

AB = carbadox50 g/ton

PP = spray dried porcine plasma6% of the diet

PC = spray dried porcine plasma + carbadox6% PP + 50 g/ton AB

Villi Height and Crypt Depth in the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine

050

100150200250300350400450

Villi Height, um Crypt Depth, um

NCDSYCRSABPPPC

a a a b a ab b

NC = negative controlDS = spray dried distiller’s solubles a, b = Least squares means with different superscripts are different (P < .05)YC = spray dried yeast creamRS = spray dried residual solublesAB = carbadoxPP = spray dried porcine plasmaPC = spray dried porcine plasma + carbadox

Villi Height:Crypt Depth Ratio in the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Height:Depth Ratio

NCDSYCRSABPPPC

a a ab b a ab b

NC = negative controlDS = spray dried distiller’s solubles a, b = Least squares means with different superscripts are different (P < .05)YC = spray dried yeast creamRS = spray dried residual solublesAB = carbadoxPP = spray dried porcine plasmaPC = spray dried porcine plasma + carbadox

Villi Measurements from the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine from a Pig Fed the Residual Solubles Diet (10X)

Villi Measurements from the Upper 25% of the Small Intestine from a Pig Fed the Carbadox Diet (10X)

The Use of DDGS in Dairy Rations

Is There a Difference When Feeding Whiskey or Fuel Ethanol Distillers Grains?

When milk production was compared between feeding DDGS from whiskey or fuel ethanol plants:

* Similar milk production * Higher production than when fed SBM* If DDGS was dark (heat damaged?):

- production was the same as when fed SBM

Florida Research (1995)

Wet vs. Dried Distiller’s Grains

Nutrient content of DM is the same for both

Considerations for Wet Distiller’s Grains:- Can usually store only 5-7 days- May need preservatives (e.g. propionic acid or other organic acids, etc.)

- Limited economical hauling distances - Rations may be too wet

- limit total DM intake, especially if ensiled forages are also fed

Production Response of Dairy Cows When Fed Distiller’s Grains

The same as, or greater than when fed SBM

Increased or no change when supplemented with protected lysine & methionine

Similar to when fed a blend of protein supplements (SBM, FM, DG)

How Much Distiller’s Grains Can be Fed to Dairy Cows?

Recommend max. of ~ 20% of ration DM- 10-13 lb/d of dried- 30-40 lb/d of wet

Usually no palatability problems

At 30% of DM:- May decrease DMI, especially if Wet CDG- May feed excess protein

Example Ration Considerations for Dairy CattleDiets containing 50:50 forage:concentrate

- If equal proportions of alfalfa & corn silage* DG can replace most or all protein supplement

- If mostly corn silage* More DG can be fed but may need some other

protein supplement (check Lysine and P levels)

- If mostly alfalfa* Less DG likely needed to supply diet CP

The Use of DDGS in Beef Rations

The Use of DDGS in Beef Rations

Nutritional Value of DDGS for Beef Cattle

Excellent protein source (28% crude protein)High by-pass proteinExcellent source of essential minerals (P and K)Improves rumen healthVery palatable1.8 times more value compared to soybean meal

Distiller’s Grains for Beef Cattle

As protein source6-15% of ration DM

As an energy sourcewhen fed at >15% of DMmay reduce acidosis because highly digestible fiber in place of starch

ADG and F/G usually better than with corn

Klopfenstein et al., University of Nebraska

Value of Nutrients in DDGS for Finishing Cattle

EnergyWet distiller’s grains – 110 to 125% energy of corn (DM basis)DDGS – 100% of corn (DM basis)

ProteinBy-pass > soybean mealWet = Dry is properly dried

FiberHigh fiber and low starch reduces fermentation rate

Safe ingredient to start cattle on finishing dietsReduces subacute acidosis

FatOil content limits the quantity fed (<40%)

PhosphorusNo value in corn-based finishing dietsValue as a supplement to low P forages

How Much Distiller’s By-Products Can Be Fed to Beef Cattle?

DDGS (90% DM)Feed to supply protein to meet requirement

< 20 % ration dry matter

Wet DGS (30% DM)Feed to supply protein and energy

Commonly fed at < 25% of ration dry matterGreatest value at 15 to 20% of ration dry matter

Can feed up to 40% of ration dry matterOverfeed protein and phosphorus

Wet Condensed Distiller’s Solubles (30% DM)Feed to supply protein and energy

Limit to < 10% of ration dry matter

Value of By-Products for Beef

$59 $23 $36 308030Distillers Syrup

$53 $23 $30 306630Distillers Grains, Wet

$151 $64 $87 286688Distillers Grains, Dry

$153 $54 $98 237291Cottonseed, Whole

$59 $21 $38 206340Corn Gluten Feed, Wet

$132 $47 $85 206390Corn Gluten Feed, Dry

$88 $21 $67 9.55286Corn Screenings

Value/tonValue/tonValue/tonCP %Mcal/cwtDM %Commodity

TotalProteinEnergyNEg

Maximum Value per Ton, delivered100% DM

75%286099.0$490 Feed Grade Urea per ton

25%53.46589.0$320 Hi Pro Soybean Meal per ton

9.56688.0$3.05Corn per bushel

$59 $23 $36 308030Distillers Syrup

$53 $23 $30 306630Distillers Grains, Wet

$151 $64 $87 286688Distillers Grains, Dry

$153 $54 $98 237291Cottonseed, Whole

$59 $21 $38 206340Corn Gluten Feed, Wet

$132 $47 $85 206390Corn Gluten Feed, Dry

$88 $21 $67 9.55286Corn Screenings

Value/tonValue/tonValue/tonCP %Mcal/cwtDM %Commodity

TotalProteinEnergyNEg

Maximum Value per Ton, delivered100% DM

75%286099.0$490 Feed Grade Urea per ton

25%53.46589.0$320 Hi Pro Soybean Meal per ton

9.56688.0$3.05Corn per bushel

Cost DM% NEg CP% Ratio

DDGS Relative Value Differs Depending on Species

$108.00Beef Feedlot

$96.34Swine G-F Diet

$104.66Layer Diet

$100.09Poultry Finisher

$114.24Dairy Lactation Assumptions:

•Corn $2.00 / bu

•SBM $175.00 / ton

•Urea $360.00 / ton

•Non-ruminant diets corn/SBM

•Ruminant diets typical diets with competing by-products.

Feed Dollars/ ton

Source: Tilstra, Land O’ Lakes

U of M DDGS Web Sitewww.ddgs.umn.edu

We have developed a DDGS web site featuring:* research summaries

- swine, poultry, dairy, & beef- DDGS quality

* presentations given* links to other DDGS related web sites* international audiences