1. Corn Replacement: Coproducts & Ag Residues Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein, & many students

3. Byproducts WDGS, modified (45% DM) WDGS, traditional (35% DM) DDGS, (90% DM) Syrup, distillers solubles, CCDS WCGF (45% DM) WCGF-Sweet Bran (60% DM) DCGF Steep Synergy “new” distillers grains

4. Meta-Analysis of Using Distillers Grains Virgil Bremer, Terry Klopfenstein & Galen Erickson

5. WDGS Meta- Analysis 20 feedlot trials at UNL 3,365 steers, 350 pens WDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC Levels of WDGS up to 50% DM.

6. Average Daily Gain

7. WDGS Feed Efficiency 150143136130 Feeding Value, % of Corn

8. WDGS 12 th Rib Fat 0.520.540.55 0.48

9. WDGS Marbling Score 535537534525528

10. MDGS Meta- Analysis 4 feedlot trials at UNL 680 steers, 85 pens MDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC Levels of WDGS up to 50% DM.

11. DDGS Meta- Analysis 4 feedlot trials at UNL 581 steers, 66 pens DDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC Levels of WDGS up to 40% DM.

12. DGS Feeding Value (% of DRC & HMC Blend)

13. WDGSMDGSDDGSSEMP-value Performance 1 DMI, lb/d 24.8 a 26.4 b 27.1 b 0.07< 0.01 ADG, lb 4.114.174.05 0.30.30 F:G 6.06 a 6.33 b 6.67 c <0.01 Carcass Characteristics 2 HCW, lb 882887877 60.52 Marbling Score 610599602 90.69 12 th rib fat, in 0.630.640.60 0.10.15 LM area, in 2 13.313.213.4 0.150.50 a,b,c Means with different superscripts differ (P - value < 0.05). 1 DMI - Dry matter intake; ADG - Average daily gain; G:F - gain per lb of feed. 2 HCW - Hot carcass wt.; Marbling Score: 400 - slight, 500 - small, 600 - Modest, 700 - Moderate, 800 - Slightly Abundant. Nuttelman et al., 2011 Beef Report Dry, Modified, Wet

14. Spring 2010 $3.30/bu corn 50 miles hauling DDGS: $100/ ton MDGS: $46/ ton WDGS: $34/ ton

15. Effect of Drying Costs on DGS $3.30/bu corn 50 miles hauling DDGS: $125/ ton MDGS: $54/ ton WDGS: $34/ ton

16. Current Prices $6.25/bu corn 60 miles hauling DDGS: $175/ ton MDGS: $90/ ton WDGS: $75/ ton

17. Do we have to feed grain? 4 WCGF:WDGS combination experiments (Loza, Loza, Buckner, Benton) 2 experiments with >60% WDGS (Wilken, Rich) Feeding straight WCGF or Sweet Bran

18. High Levels of Wet Corn Gluten Feed (ADM) DRC17.5%35.0%52.5%70.0%87.5% ItemControlWCGFWCGFWCGFWCGFWCGF ADG3.453.583.743.593.563.39 DMI22.8123.5823.8323.7122.7122.53 Feed/gain6.596.566.366.616.376.64

19. BP (50:50 Blend) (%DM) Loza et al., 2003 Sweet Bran/WDGS combination

20. BP ADG Loza et al., 2003 Sweet Bran/WDGS combination

21. Feed Conversion Q = <0.05 L = 0.32 BP (%DM) Loza et al., 2003 Sweet Bran/WDGS combination

22. BP (% DM) (%DM) Benton et al., 2009 ADM Synergy concept

23. MDGS (%DM):30 P-Value WCGF (%DM): 01530 LinQuad DMI, lb/d22.322.522.0 0.150.04 ADG, lb4.034.053.86 <0.01 F:G5.525.545.70 <0.010.13 Feedlot Performance Benton et al., 2009 ADM Synergy concept

24. MDGS (%DM):30 P-Value WCGF (%DM): 01530 LinQuad HCW, lb837839818 <0.01 LM area, in 2 14.114.014.2 0.810.35 12 th rib fat, in0.560.580.53 0.100.07 Marbling score 1 511512487 0.030.15 ≥Choice, %51.653.641.6 0.110.19 Yield Grade2.973.052.79 0.020.01 1 Marbling score: 400 = Slight, 450 = Slight 50, 500 = Small 0, etc. Carcass Characteristics Benton et al., 2009 ADM Synergy concept

25. Corn82.543.8--21.9- WDGS -43.865.643.832.832.8 Sweet Bran---43.832.832.8 Soyhulls-----21.9 Grass--21.9--- Molasses5.0----- Alfalfa7.57.57.57.57.57.5 Supplement5.05.05.05.05.05.0 High amounts of combination TRT:83% corn44DG:66DG:44DG:33DG:33DG: -corn-hay44GF33GF33GF -corn-hulls Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.

26. DMI26.125.226.624.826.125.8 ADG 4.034.474.033.974.163.73 F:G6.48 bc 5.65 a 6.61 c 6.26 b 6.28 b 6.93 d PEM, n000502 F:G P = 0.06 for WDG-hay and soyhulls TRT:83% corn44DG:66DG:44DG:33DG:33DG: -corn-hay44GF33GF33GF -corn-hulls Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep. High amounts of combination

27. Higher DGS-$ Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.

28. Higher DGS-$ Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.

29. DMI22.622.920.219.117.818.219.6 ADG 3.604.333.653.572.882.493.07 F:G6.295.295.525.386.177.306.37 DOF, n183183183183225225225 Fat depth0.420.610.480.430.430.270.50 Higher DGS TRT:83% corn40DG70DG77DG85DG70DG77DG corn8straw9straw10straw25straw17straw Rich et al., 2011 Beef Report

30. DMI22.622.920.219.117.818.219.6 ADG 3.60 b 4.33 a 3.65 b 3.57 b 2.88 d 2.49 e 3.07 c F:G6.29 c 5.29 a 5.52 b 5.38 ab 6.17 c 7.30 d 6.37 c DOF, n183183183183225225225 Fat depth0.420.610.480.430.430.270.50 Higher DGS TRT:0DG40DG70DG77DG85DG70DG77DG 5straw5straw8straw9straw10straw25straw17straw 83corn40corn17corn9corn Rich et al., 2011 Beef Report

32. http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/ bioenergy/2008seminars http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/ bioenergy/10 http://beef.unl.edu/byproducts. shtml

33. Adam Shreck Replacing corn with chemically treated forage in beef finishing diets

34. Use of chemical treatment to enhance digestibility NaOH: Anderson and Ralston, 1973 Garrett et al.,1976 Hogan and Weston, 1971 Jared and Donefer, 1970 Klopfenstein and Koers, 1973 Rexen and Thomsen, 1976 Rounds and Klopfenstein,1974 Saxena et al., 1971 Waller and Klopfenstein, 1975 Todorov, 1975 CaOH: Rounds and Klopfenstein,1974 Waller and Klopfenstein, 1975 Waller et al., 1976 Lesoing et al., 1980 Digestibility: NaOH > CaO NaOH+ CaO = ↑NaOH

35. Experiments Optimize use of chemical treatments Factors: –DM –Chemical –Reaction Length –Ambient Temperature –Forage type –Plant part Effects on Digestibility In Vitro

36. Exp 1. 4X3X2 Factorial 4 reps Chemical: –Control –5% CaO –4% CaO 1% NaOH –3% CaO 2% NaOH Residue –Cobs –Straw –Stover DM –35% –50%

38. IVDMD

39. IVDMD Part x Treatment 0 5:0 4:1 3:2 CaO: NaOH, %:

40. Ingredient, % of DMConCobsStrawStalks DRC 4636 Cobs-treated —20————— Straw-treated ———20——— Stalks-treated —————20— Cobs-not treated 3.33—20———— Straw-not treated 3.33———20—— Stalks-not treated 3.33—————20 WDGS 40 Supplement 4444444

41. Table 1. Performance characteristics for Exp 1010. Corn CobsWheat StrawCorn Stover P-Value ItemControlTreatedNativeTreatedNativeTreatedNative SEF1F1 T2T2 FxT 3 DMI25.8125.3625.6625.8325.2926.1125.06 0.320.970.110.12 ADG3.78 abc 3.73 bcd 3.74 bc 4.01 a 3.55 cd 3.83 ab 3.49 d 0.0840.30<0.010.01 F:G6.85 ab 6.80 ab 6.85 ab 6.45 a 7.14 b 6.82 ab 7.19 b 0.0030.310.010.16 1 Fixed effect of forage fraction 2 Fixed effect of chemical treatment 3 Forage fraction x chemical treatment interaction 5 Calculated as HCW/common dress (63%) 6 Pen weight before slaughter abcd Within a row, values lacking common superscripts, differ (P<0.05)

42. Table 2. Carcass characteristics for Exp 1010. Corn CobsWheat StrawCorn StoverP-Value ItemControlTreatedNativeTreatedNativeTreatedNativeSEF1F1 T2T2 FxT 3 HCW834 bc 828 bc 829 bc 857 a 811 cd 841 ab 805 d 15.30.28<0.01 BF0.53 a 0.47 bc 0.48 bc 0.50 ab 0.44 c 0.53 a 0.44 c 0.0180.79<0.010.03 REA12.9613.0313.4113.4913.2013.1312.720.2210.100.50.10 Marbling 4 5175075165084845014949.40.120.250.14 Calc. YG3.463.233.203.293.123.453.210.1010.390.080.59 1 Fixed effect of forage fraction 2 Fixed effect of chemical treatment 3 Forage fraction x chemical treatment interaction 4 500=Small, 600=Modest abcd Within a row, values lacking common superscripts, differ (P<0.05)

43. Assume Calcium oxide $230/Ton –Supplement cost: $298 vs $250/T As-fed costs/ ton and DM ( ): –Ncobs: $58 (64.40) –TCobs $37.5 (75.00) – Nstraw: $58 (64.40) –Tstraw: $42.5 (85.00) – Nstalks: $58 (72.50) –Tstalks: $40 (80.00) 50% DM

44. Corn Price/$ bushel $3.00$4.50$6.00 Control0.00 NCobs6.9118.3029.61 NStalks-13.32-6.70-0.16 NStraw-10.28-2.086.04 TCobs2.0614.7827.42 TStalks-0.0513.6827.33 TStraw17.3735.8054.16

46. Future Work Treated Stalks w/ MDGS 5% roughage in control 1” vs 3” grind size Increasing pen surface OM Response with calf-feds vs yearlings????????

47. Potential of Chemically Treated Corn Stover and Modified Distiller Grains as a Partial Replacement for Corn Grain in Feedlot Diets J. Russell, D. Loy and J. Anderson (ISU) and M. Cecava (ADM)

48. On-farm biomass pre-treatment Stover chopped to reduce particle size and increase surface area. Treated with nothing or 5% wt:wt dry powder CaO and water to create Ca(OH) 2 Compressed and stored in plastic Ag bags, anaerobically for 30 days Used in cattle feeding trial with 210 steers. Cattle fed 183 or 195 days.

49. On-Farm Treatment Composition of Diets Ingredient % DM Corn Ration CRF Ration Corn grain7035 Corn stover*520 Modified distillers grains2040 Supplement55 * Corn Stover consisted of either 1)baled stover-ground; 2) ag bag stover, no treatment; 3)ag bag stover with alkaline treatment. Cattle fed Grain Diet for entire trial, CRF Ration for entire trial or CRF Diet for 112 days and then Grain Diet to termination. ADM AFR 09-20 Cattle Feeding Trial Iowa State University “CRF”

50. Cattle Performance Response ADM AFR 09-20 Cattle Feeding Trial Iowa State University 30 bushels less corn versus high grain control ration a,b,cMeans with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)

51. Feed Conversion ADM AFR 09-20 Cattle Feeding Trial Iowa State University a Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05) a,b,c

52. ItemCorn Grower/Finish CRF (bale) Grower Corn finish CRF (bagged NT ) Grower Corn finish CRF (bagged TRT) Grower Corn finish CRF (bale) Grow/Finish CRF (bagged NT ) Grow/Finish CRF (bagged TRT ) Grow/Finish Hot carcass wt, lb 837 a 762 b 788 b,c 815 a,c,d 794 c 813 a,c 823 a,d Dressing %61.5 a 59.1 b 60.1 b,c 60.7 a,c 60.8 a,c 60.6 a,c 61.1 a,c Fat cover, in.53 a.36 b.33 b.39 b.c.36 b,c.39 c.49 a KPH, %2.33 a 1.82 b 1.79 b 2.05 a,b 1.88 b,c 1.92 b,c 2.15 a,c REA, in 2 13.5413.18 13.4513.6313.9313.49 Marbling score, (1000 = C-) 1088 a 1006 b 1025 b 1027 b 1008 b 1028 b 1027 b Yield grade3.13 a 2.44 b 2.47 b 2.67 b 2.44 b 2.50 b 2.96 a Value $ 1,276.65 $ 1,135.71 $ 1,186.57 $ 1,225.74 $ 1,186.91 $ 1,215.42 $ 1,231.86 Carcass characteristics a,b,c,d Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)

53. Economics (net return/steer) IngredientDM Cost/ton as fed or per bu Baled Stover, ground0.73 $ 55 Bagged, not-treated0.68 $ 59 Bagged, treated0.47 $ 51 Modified wet DG0.50 $ 82 Corn0.88 $ 6.00 Supplement0.89 $ 400

54. Practical application Grinding Adding CaO Adding Water Weight measures Storage options

55. Exothermic properties

56. Beef Extension Page http://beef.unl.edu Beef Reports 2011