Utilization of byproducts by growing & finishing cattle

G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein & many students

Minnesota Distillers Website: http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/

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!

Beef Extension Pagehttp://beef.unl.edu

Beef Reports

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: 402 472-6402geericks@unlnotes.unl.edu http://beef.unl.edu

Acknowledge: Abengoa Bioenergy Dakota Gold ResearchNebraska Corn Board Chief EthanolCargill Wet Milling US Bio Platte Valley