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 89increased with increasing dietary S. When dietary S was0.47 to 0.58 percent, occurrence of PEM was 0.38 percent.This incidence increased to 6.06 percent when dietary Swas above 0.58 percent. A level of 0.47 percent S is typicalwhen WDGS is included at 50 percent of diet DM. For producersit is important to be aware of the S content in theirco-products and their drinking water, and perhaps monitorcattle closely for clinical signs of PEM if dietary S is above0.47 percent.There is evidence that high dietary S concentration mayalso negatively affect cattle intake and gain. Uwituze etal. (2009) evaluated feeding cattle two types of DDGS at30 percent DM inclusion in either DRC or SFC finishingdiets. These two types of DDGS included normal DDGS andDDGS that was spiked with sulphuric acid. The diets containedeither 0.42 or 0.65 percent S. No interaction resultedfrom S level and grain processing. Cattle fed diets withhigh S had 8.9 percent lower DMI and 12.9 percent poorerADG, resulting in 4.3 percent lighter carcass weights. Thesecattle also had higher concentrations of ruminal hydrogensulphide gas. These data suggest that although cattle maynot exhibit clinical signs of PEM, cattle consume less feedto offset high S intakes, and weight gain is hindered, butefficiency is not affected.Sulphur level in DGS diets was evaluated for both DDGSand WDGS when fed at increasing levels in the diet (Sarturiet al., 2010). WDGS and DDGS were fed at 20, 30 and40 percent of DM and compared with a maize control.Each DGS contained either 0.82 percent or 1.16 percentS and were from two different ethanol plants. Cattle wereindividually fed (120 steers) with treatments arranged asa 2×2×3+1, factorial with factors of moisture (DDGS orWDGS), S concentration (0.82 or 1.16 percent) and threeinclusions (20, 30 or 40 percent). A linear increase in DMIwas observed for co-product level when feeding the low-SDDGS, but DMI was not affected for low-S WDGS. Feedinghigh S decreased DMI quadratically for DDGS and linearlyfor WDGS. These intake differences are probably due todifferences in energy content between DDGS and WDGS,as DDGS has a lower energy value. Feeding the high-S DGSdecreased ADG at inclusions of 30 to 40 percent DM forWDGS and 40 percent for DDGS. However, feeding DGSwith low S content resulted in ADG equal to or above cattlefed the maize control diet. Feeding DDGS at either low orhigh S resulted in similar G:F compared with the maize controldiet. However, feeding WDGS resulted in improved G:Fat 20 and 30 percent DM inclusion, but was no differentfrom maize at 40 percent inclusion. These results indicatethat high S content in WDGS and DDGS decreases feedintake to offset the high dietary S intake, which probablyleads to decreased ADG and no impact on G:F. In this study,feeding WDGS improved G:F compared with DDGS, similarto previous studies.These data suggest that although no clinical signs ofPEM were observed, high S content in DGS can negativelyaffect intake and gain, with little effect on feed conversions.The elevated S may be more challenging in WDGSthan DDGS since cattle ate less and gained less at lowerinclusions of high-sulphur WDGS compared with highsulphurDDGS. Metabolism results support these findingsin terms of H 2 S produced in the rumen.FORAGE-FED CATTLEBeef calves from weaning until they enter feedlots, developingheifers and beef cows are fed primarily forage diets.Especially in the winter, forages are low in protein and Pand need to be supplemented. Maize milling co-productsare excellent sources of both protein and P and fit nicelyinto winter supplementation programmes. Maize millingco-products are also an excellent source of energy andare particularly well suited for adding to forage baseddiets. Co-product feeds can also be used to supply theenergy needs of cattle in pasture and range situations. Itis advantageous that the same commodity can be usedfor supplemental energy as well as protein. Because thestarch is removed during the milling process, co-productscause minimal negative associative effects on fibre digestion.Sometimes the addition of starch to forage diets cancause a decrease in fibre digestion because of competitionbetween starch- and fibre-fermenting bacteria. Increasingstarch in the diet allows starch-digesting bacteria to outcompetefibre-digesting bacteria (Fieser and Vanzant,2004). Instead of starch, maize co-products contain highlydigestible fibre, which is less disruptive to digestion of thefibre in the forage.Clearly, CGF is an excellent source of nutrients forforage-based diets. There is little to no starch in glutenfeed, which results in no negative effect on fibre digestion.Maize gluten feed contains highly digestible fibreand degradable protein, which are good sources of energyand protein for rumen microbes, especially in forage-baseddiets (DeHaan, Klopfenstein and Stock, 1983). Wet and dryCGF were compared with DRC for growing calves fed grasshay, wheat straw and maize stalklage. The CGF or maizereplaced 40 percent of the forage (Oliveros et al., 1987).The supplements nearly doubled gains and improved feedconversion (Table 19). Wet and dry CGF had better feedconversions than maize, and WCGF had better feed conversionthan DCGF.The apparent feeding value of DCGF was 10 percentgreater than maize, while WCGF was 31 percent higherthan DCGF and 42 percent greater than maize in theseforage-based diets.In the case of DGS, a major source of the energysupplied to the animal is in the form of maize oil. Lipidscontain 2.25 times more energy per unit weight than
90Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 19Wet (WCGF) or dry maize gluten feed (DCGF) or maize inforage-based diets (balanced for 11.5% CP) for growingcalvesForage Maize DCGF WCGFDMI (kg/day) 5.3 8.2 7.5 7.4ADG (kg) 0.53 1.02 0.98 1.07G:F 0.095 0.125 0.131 0.146Notes: DMI = dry matter intake; ADG = average daily gain; G:F = gainto-feedratio. Source: Adapted from Oliveros et al., 1987.TABLE 20Growing calf performance over 84 days when fed nativegrass hay (CP = 8.7%) supplemented with either maize ordried distillers grains for two levels of gain. Net energywas 27% greater for DDG compared with maizeADG (kg)G:FLowHighMaize 0.37 0.71DDGS 0.45 0.86Maize 0.139 0.222DDGS 0.172 0.278Notes: ADG = average daily gain; G:F = gain-to-feed ratio. Gain levelswere: Low = supplement fed at 0.21% BW; High = supplement fed at0.81% BW. Source: Adapted from Loy et al., 2008.other nutrients. Because DGS is about 12 percent fat, it isa concentrated source of energy. The nutrient content ofDDGS can account for approximately 18 percent greaterenergy value than maize. However, the nutrient contentalone cannot account for associative effects, positive ornegative, that may exist and the actual observed energyvalue is much greater. A study by Loy et al. (2008) measuredthe TDN concentration of DDGS to be about 130 percentwhen fed at low levels, but when fed at high levels it wasonly about 118 percent (Table 20). This decline may bedue to the fat content of the DDGS and the subsequentinhibition of fibre fermentation. Fat levels in the rumengreater than 5 percent have been shown to decrease fibredigestion through a variety of proposed – but as of yetunconfirmed – mechanisms. In the Loy et al. (2008) study,the fat of the high level DDGS diet was about 5.2 percent.TABLE 21Effects of replacing dry-rolled maize (DRC) with wetdistillers grains with solubles (WDGS) fed at 0.81% of BWin a forage-based dietDRC WDGS SEM P-valueInitial BW (kg) 232 231 3 0.82Ending BW (kg) 316 323 3 0.13DMI (kg/day) 7.2 7.2 0.11 1ADG (kg) 1.00 1.10 0.02
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:
Page 54 and 55:
35Chapter 3Impact of United States
Page 56 and 57:
Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 58 and 59: Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 78: Impact of United States biofuels co
Page 81 and 82: 62Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 107: 88Biofuel 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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?