Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Utilization of feed co-products from wet or dry milling for beef cattle 83TABLE 9Performance measurements for cattle fed increasing levels of ‘Sweet Bran’ (SB) WCGF as a percentage of diet DMControl diet 10% SB 20% SB 30% SB 40% SBDMI (kg/day) (1) 9.9 10.1 10.4 10.6 11.1ADG (kg) (1) 1.67 1.73 1.78 1.84 1.90G:F (1) 0.168 0.169 0.171 0.172 0.17412th rib fat (cm) 1.17 1.19 1.24 1.27 1.32Marbling score (2) 492 497 501 506 511Notes: DMI = dry matter intake; ADG = average daily gain; G:F = gain-to-feed ratio. (1) Linear response to level of SB in the diet (P 0.03). (2) Marblingscore: 400 = Slight, 500 = Small, 600 = Modest. Source: Adapted from Bremer, Erickson and Klopfenstein, 2008.intermediate for MDGS. This suggests that cattle consumemore feed to support the same gain for dried (DDGS) or partiallydried (MDGS) distillers compared with no drying (WDGS).Distinct differences exist for WCGF, even within companies,due to plant-to-plant variation. Stock et al. (1999)divided WCGF into two main categories, depending on theratio of steep to bran. Based on differences in the amountof steep added, WCGF has 100 to 109 percent the feedingvalue of DRC when fed at levels of 20 to 60 percent of dietDM (Stock et al., 1999). Higher feeding value (and protein)is associated with increases in steep added in WCGF.‘Sweet Bran’ (Cargill, Blair) has more steep relative to maizebran and is of higher feeding value than traditional WCGF.However, feeding WCGF results in better performance thanDCGF (Ham et al., 1995). A meta-analysis was conductedby Bremer, Erickson and Klopfenstein (2008) to evaluateincreasing levels of ‘Sweet Bran’ in feedlot diets. Cattle consumedmore DM and had greater ADG and G:F when fed‘Sweet Bran’ compared with maize (Table 9). Each of theseparameters resulted in a linear relationship, thus indicatingthat performance theoretically continues to increase up to40 percent ‘Sweet Bran’, the maximum included in thisdataset. Cattle fed ‘Sweet Bran’ had greater 12th rib fatthickness and marbling scores.The improved animal feeding performance from coproductfeeds translates into increased 12th rib fat thicknessand either equal or greater marbling scores comparedwith maize. Cattle gain weight quicker when fed co-productscompared with feedlot cattle fed maize. Therefore,cattle either require fewer days on feed to reach the sameend weight, backfat and marbling score, or they will beslaughtered heavier and fatter with co-products in the diet.The increased fat thickness and marbling is presumably dueto improved daily gains and energy content of the dietswhen co-products are fed.HIGH INCLUSIONSCo-product feeds can be priced cheaply due to supply anddemand fluctuations, and may be a very attractive feedwhen grains are priced high. Therefore, some researchhas been conducted to evaluate feeding greater amounts(>50 percent diet DM) of WDGS in finishing diets todetermine impact on performance. Providing other low-fatco-products or greater roughage inclusions might offsetthe risk related to high S and PEM, or high fat resulting indecreased cattle performance.Loza et al. (2010) conducted three experiments evaluatingcombinations of WCGF and WDGS up to 75 percent ofdiet DM, with varying levels of forage. Cattle fed a 1:1 ratioof WCGF and WDGS had similar or improved performancecompared with cattle fed a maize-based diet. Some PEMsymptoms were observed in cattle fed diets with >60 percentco-products and 0 percent roughage.Wilken et al. (2009) evaluated four diets containinghigher (>50 percent diet DM) amounts of co-productscompared with a DRC-based control diet and a DRC dietwith 44 percent WDGS. All diets contained 7.5 percentalfalfa hay. The four experimental diets were: (1) 33 percentWDGS plus 33 percent ‘Sweet Bran’ with 22 percentDRC; (2) 33 percent WDGS, 33 percent ‘Sweet Bran’ and22 percent soyhulls, with no DRC; (3) 44 percent WDGSplus 44 percent ‘Sweet Bran’ with no DRC or soyhulls;and (4) 66 percent WDGS with 22 percent brome grasshay. Cattle diet (3) had the lowest DMI, probably due tohigh dietary energy (Table 10). Cattle fed diet (4) had thegreatest DMI. Cattle fed 44 percent WDGS with maize hadthe greatest ADG and G:F. However, when cattle were feddiets containing a co-product combination with no soyhullsor 66 percent WDGS with 22 percent grass hay, cattleperformance was considered acceptable and similar to themaize control diet.Because the previous trial indicated that feeding a higherinclusion of WDGS with a larger amount of roughageyielded acceptable performance with no incidences ofPEM, a second trial was conducted by Rich et al. (2010)that evaluated high inclusions of WDGS with varying levelsof wheat straw. Two dietary treatments were similar toWilken et al. (2009) in this trial: a DRC-based control dietand a DRC diet with 40 percent WDGS. Five other dietarytreatments were: (1) 70 percent WDGS plus 8 percentstraw, with 17 percent DRC; (2) 77.5 percent WDGS plus9 percent straw, with 8.5 percent DRC; (3) 85 percent WDGSplus 10 percent straw replacing all maize; (4) 70 percentWDGS plus 25 percent straw replacing all maize; and
84Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 10Effect of feeding high levels of co-products on cattle performanceDiet (see notes for details)83maize 44DG:maize 33DG:33SB:maize 33DG:33SB:hulls 44DG:44SB 66DG:hayDMI (kg/day) 11.9 bc 11.5 ab 11.9 bc 11.7 abc 11.3 a 12.1cADG (kg) 1.83 b 2.03c 1.89 b 1.70 a 1.80 b 1.83 bG:F 0.154 bc 0.177 a 0.159 b 0.144 d 0.160 b 0.151cNotes: DMI = dry matter intake; ADG = average daily gain; G:F = gain-to-feed ratio.Key to diets: 83maize = 83% maize-based control; 44DG:maize = 44% WDGS in maize based diet; 33DG:33SB:maize = 33% WDGS with 33% ‘SweetBran’ and 22% maize; 33DG:33SB:hulls = 33% WDGS with 33% ‘Sweet Bran’ and 22% soyhulls; 44DG:44SB = 44% WDGS with 44% ‘Sweet Bran’;66DG:hay = 66% WDGS with 22% grass hay. Represented as a % of diet DM. Percentage S in diets on DM basis: 83maize = 0.153%; 44DG:maize =0.403%; 33DG:33SB:maize = 0.475%; 33DG:33SB:hulls = 0.476%; 44DG:44SB = 0.587%; 66DG:hay 0.549%. a,b,c,d = Means within the same row withouta common suffix differ (P 0.06). Source: Adapted from Wilken et al., 2009.TABLE 11Effect of feeding high levels of WDGS in combination with straw on cattle performanceDiet (see notes for details)83maize 40DG:maize 70DG:8straw 77DG:9straw 85DG:10straw 70DG:25straw 77DG:17strawDMI (kg/day) 10.3 10.4 9.2 8.6 8.1 8.3 8.9ADG (kg) 1.64 b 1.97 a 1.66 b 1.62 b 1.31 d 1.13 e 1.40 cG:F 0.159 c 0.189 a 0.181 b 0.186 ab 0.162 c 0.137 d 0.157 cDOF (n) 183 183 183 183 225 225 22512th rib fat (cm) 1.07 1.55 1.22 1.09 1.09 0.69 1.27Notes: DMI = dry matter intake; ADG = average daily gain; G:F = gain-to-feed ratio; DOF = degrees of freedom.Key to diets: 83maize = 83% maize-based control; 40DG:maize = 40%WDGS in a maize-based diet; 70DG:8straw = 70% WDGS with 8% straw;77DG:9straw = 77% WDGS with 9% straw; 85DG:10straw = 85% WDGS with 10% straw; 70DG:25straw = 70% WDGS with 25% straw; 77DG:17straw =77% WDGS with 17% straw. Represented as a % of diet DM. Percentage S in diets on a DM basis: 83maize 0.05%; 40DG:maize = 0.38%; 70DG:8straw= 0.57%; 77DG:9straw = 0.61%; 85DG:10straw = 0.66%; 70DG:25straw = 0.55%; 77DG:17straw = 0.60%. a,b,c,d,e = Means within the same rowwithout a common suffix differ (P
Page 1 and 2:
BIOFUEL CO-PRODUCTS AS LIVESTOCK FE
Page 3:
Recommended citationFAO. 2012. Biof
Page 6 and 7:
vco-products to swine - Feeding cru
Page 8 and 9:
viiCHAPTER 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 10 and 11:
ixPrefaceHumans are faced with majo
Page 13 and 14:
xiiCBMCBSCCDSCCKCDOCDSCFCFBCFRCGECI
Page 15 and 16:
xivHCHOHClHCNHisH-JPKMHMCHPDDGHPDDG
Page 17 and 18:
xviPPbPCVPDPEMPFADPhePJPKCPKEPKMPKO
Page 19 and 20:
xviiiWBPWCGFWDGWDGSWDGSHWPCWTWWWNSK
Page 21 and 22:
2Biofuel co-products as livestock f
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
10Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52: 32Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 54 and 55: 35Chapter 3Impact of United States
Page 56 and 57: Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 78: Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 101: 82Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 120 and 121: 101Chapter 6Hydrogen sulphide: synt
Page 122 and 123: Hydrogen sulphide in cattle fed co-
Page 132: Hydrogen sulphide in cattle fed co-
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 174 and 175:
155Chapter 8Utilization of crude gl
Page 176 and 177:
Utilization of crude glycerin in be
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 228 and 229:
209Chapter 11Co-products from biofu
Page 230 and 231:
Co-products from biofuel production
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 294 and 295:
275Chapter 15Sustainable and compet
Page 296 and 297:
Sustainable and competitive use of
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
291Chapter 16Scope for utilizing su
Page 312 and 313:
Scope for utilizing sugar cane baga
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
303Chapter 17Camelina sativa in pou
Page 324 and 325:
Camelina sativa in poultry diets: o
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
311Chapter 18Utilization of lipid c
Page 332 and 333:
Utilization of lipid co-products of
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 370 and 371:
351Chapter 21Use of detoxified jatr
Page 372 and 373:
Use of detoxified jatropha kernel m
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
379Chapter 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 400 and 401:
Use of Pongamia glabra (karanj) and
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
403Chapter 23Co-products of the Uni
Page 424 and 425:
Co-products of the United States bi
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440:
Page 443 and 444:
Page 445 and 446:
Page 447 and 448:
Page 449 and 450:
Page 451 and 452:
Page 453 and 454:
Page 455 and 456:
Page 457 and 458:
Page 459 and 460:
Page 461 and 462:
Page 463 and 464:
Page 465 and 466:
Page 467 and 468:
Page 469 and 470:
Page 471 and 472:
Page 473 and 474:
Page 475 and 476:
Page 477 and 478:
Page 479 and 480:
Page 481 and 482:
Page 483 and 484:
Page 486 and 487:
467Chapter 26An assessment of the p
Page 488 and 489:
An assessment of the potential dema
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
Page 494 and 495:
Page 496 and 497:
Page 498 and 499:
Page 500 and 501:
Page 502 and 503:
483Chapter 27Biofuels: their co-pro
Page 504 and 505:
Biofuels: their co-products and wat
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
Page 520 and 521:
501Chapter 28Utilization of co-prod
Page 522 and 523:
Utilization of co-products of the b
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Page 540 and 541:
Page 542 and 543:
523Contributing authorsSouheila Abb
Page 544 and 545:
Contributing authors 525for the Fee
Page 546 and 547:
Contributing authors 527Friederike
Page 548 and 549:
Contributing authors 529Sustainable
Page 550 and 551:
Contributing authors 531During the
Page 552:
Contributing authors 533(Hons.) and
show all

Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?