1. Livestock Perspectives on Bio-energy co-products

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

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

4. Amino Acid Digestibility (%)
Novus Intl., 2006

5. High Dig. Lys.
Low Dig. Lys.

6. 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 to 30%
DDGS to 80%

7. 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)

8. 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 = DDGS = 0.84
DDGS contains 16% of the available lysine SBM = DDGS = 0.39

9. 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

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

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

13. Processing Methods or Technologies
1. Conventional dry grind

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. Effect of Processing Technology on Nutrient Content of DDGS (%)1
Conventional Modified Quick germ Component dry grind dry grind quick fiber
Protein
Fat
Fiber (TDF)
Lysine
Phosphorus, %
1 dry matter basis.
Parsons et al., 2006

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. 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?

22. Helpful Resources http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/