Distillers Grains for Beef Cattle Steve Boyles Dept. of Animal Sciences The Ohio State University Distillers Grains for Beef Cattle Steve Boyles Dept. of Animal Sciences The Ohio State University

Name 10 cities in China 200 million people in China now making > $30,000 per year How many people do we have in the U.S.?

According to Renewable Fuels Assoc .U.S. has 107 ethanol plants in production 49 under construction More on the drawing board Corn is the favored raw material

North America Ethanol

DDG Use in 2005

With Tax CreditWithout Tax Credit Crude Oil ($/barrel) Corn ($/bu) Crude Oil ($/barrel) Corn ($/bu) How much can ethanol pay for corn? St-Pierre, 2006

With Tax CreditWithout Tax Credit Crude Oil ($/barrel) Corn ($/bu) Crude Oil ($/barrel) Corn ($/bu) How much can ethanol pay for corn? St-Pierre, 2006

Co-Products of Ethanol Production (Take out starch, 75% of kernal)  Distiller’s Grains (DG)  Distiller’s Solubles (DS)  Distiller’s Grains w/ Solubles (DGS)  Carbon dioxide Assume you are buying DGS unless told otherwise

Wet vs. Dry Distillers Dry distillers: ~88% DM Wet distillers: ~32% DM Modified wet: ~47% DM - RUP is higher in dry (19.5 vs 16.5%) - Not much else different

Nutrient Composition DDGS (Varies with manufacturing process) Item% of DM Crude protein28 to 36 RUP, % of CP47 to 63 NEl, Mcal/kg2.20 Fat8.2 to 11.7 ADF19 to 24 NDF38 to 44 Ca0.10 to 0.15 P0.43 to 0.83 High-bypass potential with >80% SI digestion NDF As effective as Alfalfa haylage Only 68% as effective as Corn silage

DDG SBM Variation in DDG: Crude Protein

DDG Corn Variation in DDG: Fat Differences in Pellet Quality?

Why more variation?  Because taking out starch, other nutrients more concentrated  Take the variation in corn and multiply it by 3x  Color (Darker-more heat/more rapidly) Similar energy Different protein

Nutrient Content of Corn Distiller’s Grains and Distiller’s Solubles (100% DM Basis)  Plants want to sell ethanol so add back solubles NutrientDistiller’s Grains Distiller’s Solubles C. Protein, % Crude fat, % Crude fiber, % Ash, % Ca, % P, %

Safety/Composition  Attributes  Low Starch  Low NPN  Problems  Sulfur (.4% = upper limit for beef cattle, sulfate toxicity)  Thiamine (2.5 mg/lb DM, or 150 mg/hd/d above 40% DGS in Diet)  Check S in drinking water  Ca:P Ratio (May be able to remove P from mineral mix)  P (Where are you now with your CNMP?)  Variation Plant-to-Plant, Load-to-Load

Sulfate Toxicity (Sulfur added at plant…in solubles) Maximum Tolerable Limit.4% of Diet DM Requirement only.15% WDGS and DDGS may contain.8% to 1.9%

Sulfur Toxicity Must take into account other sources …basal diet and water  Chronic Toxicity Reduced DMI Reduced Growth Reduce copper status  Acute Toxicity Polioencephalomalacia (PEM) Restlessness, diarrhea, muscular twitching dyspnea (blindness), death

Effects of S Levels on Dietary S Content a (% DM) a Basal diet contains 15% corn silage, 3% urea, and corn …..does not account for S intake from water S Content of DGS, % Inclusion rate, % DM

Supplemental Calcium Carbonate Required to Maintain Ca:P Ratio (% DM) P Content of DGS, % DGS Inclusion Rate, % DM

Fat Content of Diet  Max7%??, forage-based diets (DM basis)  Max8%??, finishing rations (DM basis)  These seem high to me……more like 5-6%

DDG as a Protein Source - Moderate in CP and high in RUP - Digestibility can be an issue - Amino acid quality can be an issue DDG can reduce milk protein %

Digestibility of RUP NRC, 2001

Courtesy of N. St-Pierre

Wet DGS Can usually store only 5-7 days Will spoil unless stored in a pit or in big silage/haylage bags to reduce mold growth May need preservative (e.g. propionic acid or other organic acid) Limited economical hauling distances (120 miles?) Can you handle a truckload? (27 ton) Rations may be too wet which could limit total DM intake, especially if ensiled forages are also fed Boyles preference..keep ration DM > 55%

Storing Wet Distillers -Shelf life ~ 1 wk with typical storage -Can be ‘ensiled’ or bagged ($7/ton) -Can be ensiled with other feeds (final DM < 50%) -Some preservatives show promise

Bagging Wet Distillers -Reduces DM losses (shrink) -Doesn’t really ferment -Preservation is via air exclusion -When exposed to air, spoils quickly -High feed out rates needed (~1 ft/day)

coproducts.pdf For More Info on Storing Wet Distillers See:

Feeding Urea with WDGS 10% WDGS20% WDGS 0% Urea.8% Urea0% Urea.8% Urea CP, % ADG, lbs DMI, lb/day Feed/gain Statistically Similar……Nebraska 2005

Feeding Urea with WDGS 10% WDGS20% WDGS 0% urea.8% urea0% urea.8% urea HCAR Wt, lb Fat Thick, in REA, in Marbling a A 500=small Statistically similar…….Nebraska, 2005

Research  Data from studies conducted since 1990  264 pens housing 1,541 head of cattle  796 lb (361 kg) initial weight  NE, IA, KS, SD

Feeding Recommendations for Distillers Grains to Beef  Protein Source (1-3 lb/d)6-15%  Energy Source (4-9 lb/d)20-40%  Mineral imbalance (Ca:P) Add limestone Ca:P > 1.1  Does not replace all roughage sources  Monitor S contect of DGS Maximum allowable level =.4% Feeding 40% DGS that has 1% S is risky  Prefer Wet over Dry DGS (if storage not a problem)

Feeding Recommendations for Distiller Grains (Beef)  Value relative to corn (DM basis) Wet % Dry 100% Pay based on energy content  Adjust nutrient management plans P Potential runoff

Effect of Ethanol Co-Products on Carcass and Beef Quality C. Reinhardt and A. DiCostanzo Kansas State University University of Minnesota

Data Set  106 treatment means  21 studies  625 pens  4,752 cattle  Co-prod = 0 to 75%  DOF = 151, 58 to 299  In BW, lb = 727, 421 to 948  ADG, lb = 3.31, 1.81 to 4.55  DMI, lb/d = 20.6, 15.4 to 26.0  FTG = 6.3, 5.1 to 8.3  End BW, lb = 1212, 997 to 1394  HCW, lb = 754, 632 to 870  Fat, in = 0.42, 0.19 to 0.62  REA, in 2 = 12.8, 11.1 to 15.0  Choice, % = 55.9, 16.7 to 95  YG = 2.7, 1.8 to 3.6

YG = *DG *DG 2 R 2 =0.903; n=89 29%

22%

MARB = *DG-0.032*DG 2 R 2 = 0.933; n = 86 MARB = *DG *YG *DG*YG *DG *DG 2 *YG R 2 = 0.962; n = 74 23%

Effects on Marbling and YG  At intermediate concentrations, co-products increase YG effect on increasing fat depth  At intermediate concentrations, co-products increase YG, but maintain marbling

26%

Effects on Marbling and YG  At a given YG end point, effects of co- products are variable  At low YG (lower energy diets or lean cattle) co-products reduce marbling at any inclusion  At YG 3 co-products have no effect on marbling up to 20% inclusion  At high YG (extended DOF, early-maturing cattle or heifers) co-products increase marbling at low to intermediate inclusion

Are They Really Effects of Co-Products?  Difficult to separate from this dataset  During, experimental feeding of ethanol co- products, energy, protein and ether extract of diet are permitted to fluctuate  Therefore, is marbling affected because of co-products or something that co-products affect? ether extract intake starch intake energy intake

Co-product Effects  Effect of ether extract on marbling score is clear virtually no change in marbling between 3.7% and 5.7% ether extract  Effect of co-product on marbling score is dependent on ME intake At ME intakes up to 30 Mcal/d, co-product inclusion at up to 50% is not detrimental to marbling At lower ME intakes, co-product inclusion is actually positive on marbling

When feeding ethanol co-products, the effect of the inherent increase in dietary ether extract may be of greater influence on marbling than that of increased ME intake

Summary  Feeding ethanol co-products: increased YG 0.17 units up to 30% inclusion had no effect on marbling at up to 30% inclusion when end point YG = 3 reduced marbling 25 and 50 points at 40% and 50% inclusion, respectively reduced marbling at up to 40% inclusion when end point YG ≤ 2 slightly increased marbling at up to 30% inclusion when end point YG = 4 reduced marbling 20 and 80 points at 40% and 50% inclusion, respectively  Marbling depression may be due to excessive dietary fat or reduced dietary starch

Summary  The effects of ethanol co-products are on REA are dependent on end weight When considering both co-product inclusion and end-weight, the effects of co-products on REA are minimal

Potential Environmental Cost Using typical feeds: Diets with 0.38% P without supplemental P +10% DDG = 0.43% P +20% DDG = 0.46% P For 100 cows for 1 year: 10% DDG = +880 lbs of manure P 20% DDG = lbs of manure P