Livestock Perspectives on Bio-energy co-products

Feeding DDGS to IN Livestock Specie Diet inclusion tons / year Swine 10% 274,950 Dairy 20% 263,000 Repl. Heifers 30% 70,000 Poultry 10% 177,390 Beef/cow-calf var. 47,477 TOTAL 832,817 60% Est. production of DDGS = 1.4 M tons

DDGS Nutritional Issues Variability in available amino acids Lys digestibility range = 60 to 84% Novus Intl. in vitro assay (r2 = 0.88)

Amino Acid Digestibility (%) Novus Intl., 2006

High Dig. Lys. Low Dig. Lys.

DDGS Nutritional Issues Variability in available amino acids Lys digestibility range = 60 to 84% Variability in available energy ME ranges between 2629 to 2981 kcal/kg Variability in phosphorus Total P, % Available P, % total P Corn 0.3 20 to 30% DDGS 0.75 60 to 80%

DDGS Nutritional Issues Variability in sodium content (corn=0.02%) 0.05 to 0.17% Typical diet = 0.18% Pelleting – molasses “balls” from solubles cause “gumming” of dies reducing throughput and pellet durability INCONSISTENCY (w/in & between plants) Mycotoxins (concentrated 3X) Sulfur content (0.4 to 0.8 vs corn = 0.12)

SBM vs DDGS DDGS contains 62% of the protein of SBM SBM = 44 or 48 DDGS = 27 DDGS contains 30% of the total lysine of SBM SBM = 2.83 DDGS = 0.84 DDGS contains 16% of the available lysine SBM = 2.41 DDGS = 0.39

Feed Manufacturing Issues Flow rates (handling / transportation) Bridging- bad with high inclusion rates Particle size? ( < 400 to > 600 um) Separation/settling issues? Pelletability? Wet feeding - spoilage

Other Issues / Unknowns with DDGS Effect on Animal Performance (including reproductive performance) ? Effect on Product Quality ?

Other Issues / Unknowns with DDGS Effect on Animal Performance (including reproductive performance) ? Effect on Product Quality ? Effect on Nutrient Management ? Producer Education

Processing Methods or Technologies 1. Conventional dry grind

Corn Dry Grind Facility Co-products in Dry Grind Corn Process One bushel of Corn Corn Dry Grind Facility 2.5-2.7 gal of Ethanol Ruminant Feed 15-17 lbs of DDGS Nonruminant Food V. Singh, UIUC

Processing Methods or Technologies 1. Conventional dry grind 2. Modified dry grind – recovers germ and pericarp fiber with a horizontal drum degerminator 3. Quick germ quick fiber – recovers germ and pericarp fiber by soaking corn in water for 6 to 12 hours with alpha-amylase

Coproducts from Modified Dry Grind and Quick Germ Quick Fiber Processes Corn Dry Grind Facility One bushel Corn 2.6 gal Ethanol Dry Degerm Defiber Process 4 lb Germ 7.0 lb Residual DDGS Ruminant Food + 4 lb Pericarp Fiber Nonruminant Food V. Singh, UIUC

Effect of Processing Technology on Nutrient Content of DDGS (%)1 Conventional Modified Quick germ Component dry grind dry grind quick fiber Protein 21 25 28 Fat 14 9 6 Fiber (TDF) 36 28 25 Lysine 0.73 0.63 0.91 Phosphorus, % 0.78 0.47 1.12 1 dry matter basis. Parsons et al., 2006

Processing Methods or Technologies 1. Conventional dry grind 2. Modified dry grind – recovers germ and pericarp fiber with a horizontal drum degerminator 3. Quick germ quick fiber – recovers germ and pericarp fiber by soaking corn in water for 6 to 12 hours with alpha-amylase 4. Enzymatic Dry Grind (E-Mill) – uses enzymes to recover additional endosperm fiber

Corn Dry Grind Facility Coproducts from Enzymatic Dry Grind (E-Mill) Corn Dry Grind Facility One bushel Corn 2.6 gal Ethanol Quick Germ Quick Fiber E-Mill 3.3 lb Germ 3.7 lb Residual DDGS Ruminant Food 4 lb Pericarp Fiber 4 lb Endosperm Fiber Nonruminant Food V. Singh, UIUC

Overall Issues with DDGS Product Variation Handling, Storage, Transportation Effect on Animal Performance Effect on Product Quality Effect on Nutrient Management Producer Education

Glycerol from Bio-diesel ~ 10% of production What to do with off-spec for human / industrial use? Can use up to 10% in diets (CHO energy +) Purity vs. cost? Pellet binder? Change in animal fat composition / amount Handling issues?

Helpful Resources http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/ http://ilift.traill.uiuc.edu/distillers/