1. Energy Value of Feeding Distillers in a Forage Diet and Feeding Fresh versus Stored Distillers Terry Klopfenstein, B.L. Nuttelman, Crystal Buckner Animal Science University of Nebraska-Lincoln

2. Reasons For Feeding DG With Forage Crude Protein Undegradable Protein Energy P No Negative Assoc. Effects? “One Size Fits All”?

3. Paradigm Shifts Use Protein for Energy Use Excess UIP for DIP

4. Escape Protein Values Source% Protein escape SBM30 DWG60-70% DDG60-70% DS30%

5. DDG Composition Solubles Level, % (DM) a 05.414.519.122.1, % DM, %95.592.190.889.389.6 CP, % 32.131.931.530.730.9 NDF, % 36.834.931.930.329.3 Fat, % 6.98.910.412.713.3 a Solubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0% solubles DDG

6. DDG Protein Digestion, % of Entering Solubles level, % DM Item05.414.519.122.1 Ruminal17.622.928.122.930.9 Post-ruminal96.696.597.097.197.0 Total-tract97.297.497.9

7. Fat Intake, kg/d Solubles Level, % DDG, % BW0.05.414.519.122.1 0.25 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.50 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.75 0.26 0.31 0.34 0.40 0.43 1.00 0.31 0.37 0.41 0.48 0.49

8. Gain:Feed Solubles Level, % DDG, % BW 0.05.414.519.122.1 0.250.1570.1390.1250.1400.139 0.500.1340.1430.1590.1420.162 0.750.1520.1510.1560.1590.148 1.000.1430.1540.1630.1520.148

9. DRC or DDG Effects on DMI, NDF Rates and pH ItemCont.DRCDDG Daily DMIh, % BW a 1.881.691.69 DMIt, % BW a 1.882.102.09 NDF, %/h ab 4.343.434.09 pH ab 6.306.226.12 a Cont. vs Supplements, P<.05. b DDG vs DRC.

11. DDG energy (forage diet) ADG, lb/d corn.811.57.05 DDG.991.89.05 F:G corn15.99.8.5 DDG12.88.0.5 DDG ~18 - 30% of corn Loy et al., 2003 Nebraska Beef Report (in press) LOWHIGH SEM

12. Introduction Feedlot diets 100 – 140% energy value of corn DDGS contains 118 to 130% energy value of corn in forage diets (Loy et al., 2003)

13. Objective Determine the energy value of WDGS in comparison to DRC in high forage diets

14. Materials and Methods Pen Study Treatments –DRC –WDGS NRC-predicted energy and MP requirements –Isocaloric –Isonitrogenous Targeted 2.25 lb ADG

15. Materials and Methods Pen Study Diet Formulation 35% Sorghum Silage 25% WDGS or 33.6 % DRC –WDGS 127% energy value of DRC Grass hay adjusted for WDGS and DRC

16. Materials and Methods Pen Study 160 crossbred steers (286 ± 18 kg) 67 d growing trial 10 pens (16 steers/pen)

17. DRCWDGS Initial BW, lb 629629 DMI, lb/d 18 17.6 ADG, lb2.71 2.88 G:F.15.16 Results Performance

18. NRC (1996) model TDN values –DRC – 83% –Grass Hay – 52% –SS – 65% DRC Net Energy adjusters 100% –WDGS 98.96% to account for increased gain Results Energy Calculation

19. WDGS 108% TDN 130% Estimated energy value of DRC –TDN values (108/83) Results Energy Calculation

20. 2009 Individual Barn Compare energy value of WDGS to DRC at three different levels in high forage diets.

21. Materials and Methods Individual Barn 60 cross bred steers (509 ± 28 lb) Individually fed 85 d Matched pair feeding

22. 108% TDN value for WDGS WDGS –15, 25, or 35% inclusion level DRC –22, 41, and 60% inclusion level Materials and Methods Individual Barn

23. 30% Sorghum silage Decreased Grass hay with increasing levels of WDGS or DRC Soypass and urea Materials and Methods Individual Barn

24. Energy Value of WDGS DMI15.615.616.116.115.715.7 ADG1.841.982.322.562.472.70 G:F.119.128.144.159.158.172 CornWDGSCornWDGSCornWDGS LowMediumHigh

25. Low WDGS (15% ) –146% Feeding Value MED WDGS (25%) –149% Feeding Value HIGH WDGS (35%) –142% Feeding Value Results Individual Barn

26. Materials and Methods 240 yearling steers (BW = 229 ± 16 kg) Backgrounding Late fall to April 21 (144 d) Supplemented 5 lb/hd/d WCGF Smooth brome grazing April 22 to May 11 (21 d)

27. Materials and Methods Summer grazing May 12 to September 23 (135 d) Treatment groups 1. No supplementation (CON) 2. MDGS supplementation at 0.6% BW (SUPP)

28. Results ItemCONSUPP Initial BW, lb506504 Spring BW, lb695693 Feedlot BW, lb914 a 1030 b ADG, lb/d1.36 a 2.20 b a,b Means with different superscripts differ (P < 0.001).

29. Meta-analysis Griffin et al., 2009 ADG CON = 0.62 kg/d ADG SUPP = 1.00 kg/d

30. Wet vs Dry DGS  Individually fed  13, 25, 40% of diet  Alfalfa + forage sorghum silage

31. Wet vs Dry DGS 1 1 Nuttelman. 2 35% of diet by regression. 3 Value vs DDGS. DMI, lb17.015.4 ADG, lb2.692.48 F:G0.1580.161 (+5%) 3 DDGS 2 WDGS 2

32. Response to UIP or Fat in DDGS Corn gluten meal, UIP Tallow, EE Equivalent levels to DDGS

35. DGS vs Corn  130% ± energy of corn  117% TDN @ corn = 90%  108% TDN @ corn = 83%  Fat  UIP

36. Feeding Fresh vs Wet Ensiled WDGS or Solubles and Residues

37. Solubles vs WDGS 1 1 Wilken. 2 22.5% byproduct, 77.5% cornstalks. DMI, lb16.215.6 ADG, lb1.041.25 F:G15.512.5 Solubles 2 WDGS 2

38. Solubles vs WDGS 1 1 Peterson. 2 35% byproduct stored with 65% straw. DMI, lb11.09.87 ADG, lb1.10.88 F:G9.7011.2 Solubles 2 WDGS 2

39. Ensiling WDGS with Cornstalks 1 1 Wilken. 2 30% WDGS, 70% cornstalks. DMI, lb12.214.1 ADG, lb1.021.43 F:G11.959.83 Fresh 2 Ensiled 2

40. Effect of Ensiling WDGS and Straw 1 1 Peterson. 2 40% WDGS, 60% straw, pair fed. 3 Different source of WDGS. DMI, lb9.509.37 ADG, lb1.13.97 F:G8.6410.6 Fresh 2 Ensiled 2,3

41. Bagging Effects 1 DMI, lb9.69.69.6 ADG, lb0.89 a 1.07 b 1.11 b G:F0.092 b 0.110 b 0.115 b F:G13.3 a 9.76 b 8.99 b FreshBaggedBagged+ 1 1 37.5% WDGS, 62.5% straw (DM). 2 Plus inoculum. a,b P<0.05.