Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Feeding biofuel co-products to dairy cattle 123TABLE 6Amino acid composition of dried distillers grain with solubles (% of CP) derived from different cereal grainsTMPMaizeDDGSSorghumDDGSWheatDDGSBarleyDDGSTriticaleDDGSArginine 3.6 4.1 3.6 3.7 5.2 4.3Histidine 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.9 0.9 2.6Isoleucine 5.9 3.4 4.4 2.4 2.4 3.5Leucine 9.7 8.6 13.6 5.9 6.0 8.8Lysine 8.1 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.1 2.1Methionine 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 0.8 1.8Phenylalanine 4.9 4.6 5.5 4.3 3.3 4.6Threonine 4.6 3.6 3.5 2.7 2.8 3.5Valine 6.6 4.5 5.4 3.2 3.2 4.5Total EAA 48.7 34.9 42.3 27.9 25.8 35.5MPS — 0.23 0.27 0.25 0.14 0.26Notes and sources: (1) TMP = Total milk protein. Adapted from Jacobson, Van Horn and Sniffen, 1970. (2) Maize dried distillers grain with solubles dataadapted from Greter et al., 2008. (3) Sorghum dried distillers drains with solubles data adapted from Urriola et al., 2009. (4) Wheat dried distillers grainwith solubles data adapted from Boila and Ingalls, 1994. (5) Barley dried distillers grain with solubles data adapted from Weiss et al., 1989, based ona mix 65% barley and 35% maize. (6) Triticale dried distillers grain with solubles data adapted from Greter et al., 2008. (7) Total EAA = Total essentialamino acids. (8) MPS = Milk protein score (concentration of first AA in protein supplement / AA concentration in milk protein) from Schingoethe, 1996.high-producing cow. Following this thought, Schingoethe(1996) suggested the use of the milk protein score (MPS)as a good indicator of protein quality for high-producingcows. The MPS is calculated as the amino acid content ofthe most limiting amino acid in a protein supplement relativeto that amino acid in milk. When calculating the MPS,both in the original grain and in the DDGS, the first limitingEAA is lysine. The second limiting amino acid with regardsto milk protein both in cereal grain and their co-products isisoleucine. The exception is barley DGS, where methionineis second in MPS values. Similar to the total EAA value, theMPS value for the DDGS derived from cereal grains is lowerthan the MPS of the original grains. The greatest decreasein this index is observed for barley, which goes from beingone of the cereal grains with the greatest MPS value (0.47;lysine = 3.8 percent of CP) to a barley DGS with very lowMPS (0.14; lysine = 1.1 percent CP).Sorghum DDGS has a greater concentration of totalEEA (Table 6) than maize and triticale DDGS, which in turnhave more than wheat and barley DDGS. However, withthe possible exception of barley DDGS, the MPS values ofall DDGS evaluated are similar, due to the similar lysine concentration(approximately 2 percent). These results suggestthat sorghum DDGS has a more desirable EEA profile andMPS score, whereas barley DDGS would be the poorest forboth parameters.DEGRADABILITY OF DISTILLERS GRAIN FROMDIFFERENT CEREAL GRAINSTables 7 and 8 show there is very little relationship betweenprotein degradability in the cereal grain of origin and theresulting DGS (sorghum DGS data not available at the timeof writing). The effective protein degradability of the majorityof DGS is lower than that of cereal grains, decreasingby 17.8, 18.4, 31.5 and 26.7 percentage points in wheat,barley, triticale and rye DGS, respectively. One exception ismaize, in which the effective protein degradability of the DGSincreased by 5 percentage units (reaching 48 percent) comparedwith the kernels. Similar results were observed for thespeed of degradation of the protein, which decreased in allDGS compared with the grain. In addition it can be observedthat triticale DGS had less degradable protein (47.5 percent)and the lowest degradation rate (3.6 percent/hour).Wet distillers grain with solubles or modifiedwet distillers grain with solublesWet distillers grain with solubles (WDGS) is sold for feedingwithout drying. Traditional wet distillers grain contains30 to 35 percent DM (Table 4) and is similar in nutrientcomposition to DDGS. These wet co-products are oftenlower in price on a DM basis compared with DDGS, but theproducer must determine if WDGS can be successfully usedin their operation. There are benefits from using WDGS,particularly because of the high palatability, and becauseof how it can condition diets that are particularly dry. Totalmixed rations that contain 10–20 percent WDGS on a DMbasis maintain greater homogeneity as dry particles sticktogether. From a practical standpoint, this results in lessparticle separation and less sorting by livestock. Producersface two primary challenges: methods to conserve WDGS;and equipment to handle WDGS.Modified wet distillers grain with solubles (MWDGS) isdistillers grain that have either undergone partial drying orhave been completely dried to DDGS and had CDS addedback to achieve a higher moisture product. MWDGS DM istypically between 45 and 55 percent. Nutrient compositionis typically similar to that reported for WDGS and DDGS(Table 4), but can vary depending on processing factors,especially the amount of solubles added back to the wetgrain to make the final product. Nutrient composition of
124Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 7In situ ruminal protein kinetic parameters and effective degradability of different cereal grainsMaize Sorghum Wheat Barley Triticale Ryea (1) 11.0 5.0 27.0 29.0 34.0 27.0b (2) 82.0 73.0 67.0 65.0 56.0 69.0c (3) 4.0 5.5 16.0 11.0 23.0 16.0ED (4) 43.0 39.0 76.0 71.0 79.0 77.0Notes and sources: Adapted from INRA, 2004. The kinetics parameters were estimated according to the equation P = a + b (1 - e –ct ) from Ørskov andMcDonald, 1979. (1) a = soluble fraction (%). (2) b = potentially degradable fraction (%). (3) c = rate of degradation (%/hour). (4) ED = EffectiveDegradability (%). The ED at assumed rates of passage k = 0.06/h was calculated according to the equation ED = a + bc/(k + c) from Ørskov andMcDonald, 1979.TABLE 8In situ ruminal protein kinetic parameters and effective degradability of distillers grain products derived from differentcereal grainsMaize DDGS Wheat DDGS Barley DDGS Triticale DDGS Rye DDGSa (6) 18.4 27.2 17.3 17.4 14.6b (7) 75.2 66.5 68.5 80.3 78.6c (8) 3.9 5.6 6.4 3.6 5.0ED 48.0 58.2 52.6 47.5 50.30Notes and sources: The kinetics parameters were estimated according to the equation P = a + b (1 - e –ct ) from Ørskov and McDonald, 1979. (1) Maizedistillers grain data adapted from Mjoun et al., 2010b. (2) Wheat distillers grain data adapted from Boila and Ingalls, 1994; Ojowi et al., 1997; Mustafa,McKinnon and Christensen, 2000; and Mustafa et al., 2000. (3) Barley distillers grain data adapted from Mustafa, McKinnon and Christensen, 2000; andMustafa et al., 2000. (4) Triticale distillers grain data adapted from Mustafa et al., 2000. (5) Rye distillers grain data adapted from Mustafa et al., 2000.(6) a = soluble fraction (%). (7) b = potentially degradable fraction (%). (8) c = rate of degradation (%/hour). (9) ED = Effective Degradability (%). TheED at assumed rates of passage k = 0.06/h was calculated according to the equation ED = a + bc/(k + c) from Ørskov and McDonald, 1979.MWDGS can vary significantly from plant to plant andwithin plant; therefore, nutrient analysis is highly recommendedprior to use in specific diets.Condensed distillers solublesCondensed distillers solubles (CDS) is also sometimesreferred to as “syrup”. It has a similar DM content to thatof WDG (27–35 percent). Compared with other distillersproducts, CDS is higher in fat (and consequently energy),lower in fermentable carbohydrates (such as fibre), butmuch higher in minerals (Table 4). Minerals such as phosphorus,potassium and sulphur are proportionally greater inCDS compared with the solids portion of the grain. Thus,as more CDS is added back to the grain, fat and mineralsincrease, but CP decreases in the final co-product. Thissyrup can be sold separately, but often most ethanol plantsadd it back to the distillers grain during WDG and/or DDGSprocessing. CDS can also be dried to create dried distillerssolubles.Reduced-fat distillers grain with solublesThere has been interest in removing fat from DDGS for usein biodiesel production or as a feed-grade fat source. Onesuch strategy is solvent extraction of DDGS. The resultingco-product, reduced-fat DDGS, has a much lower crude fatconcentration (Table 9), but slightly greater concentrationsof the remaining nutrients compared with conventionalDDGS. Mjoun et al. (2010b) reported that RUP was higherin reduced-fat distillers grain with solubles compared withtraditional DDGS (60.4 vs 52.3 percent).Recently, ethanol plants have been installing centrifugesto remove fat from wet DGS. This process removed approximately2 to 3 percentage units of fat from the final distillersgrain product. This type of distillers grain has not yet beenevaluated in dairy cow feeding studies, but it may allow aslightly greater dietary inclusion compared with traditionalDDGS.High-protein distillers grainUntil recently, most co-products resulted from either traditionalmaize dry-grind ethanol plants or from the maizewet-milling industry. As new processes have been developed,new co-products from these ethanol plants haveresulted. In one such example, maize is milled into severalfractions prior to fermentation such that the resultingproducts can be directed into different processing streams(Gibson and Karges, 2006). This fractionation results in newend products, such as high-protein DDG, dehydrated maizegerm and maize bran. Furthermore, syrup can be addedto the bran, resulting in a product being marketed as brancake (Gibson and Karges, 2006). Examples of these feedsare shown in Table 9. These products are proprietary andtherefore specific to individual companies. As a result, thenutrient composition of these streams may vary considerablyand will be quite different from that of traditionalDDGS.High-protein DDG (HPDDG) is an example of a prefermentationfractionated DDG product. As a result of thefractionation process, HPDDG is higher in CP and lower infibre compared with traditional DDGS (Table 9). The germ
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:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92: 72Biofuel 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 141: 122Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 174 and 175: 155Chapter 8Utilization of crude gl
Page 176 and 177: Utilization of crude glycerin in be
Page 178 and 179: Utilization of crude glycerin in be
Page 180: Utilization of crude glycerin in be
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?