Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Feeding biofuel co-products to dairy cattle 125TABLE 9Chemical composition of feed products from fractionation technologies for production of ethanol and co-productsProductRFDDGS HPDDG Germ BranNutrients (% of DM)DM (% as is) 86.9 92.1 ± 1.35 94.1 ± 1.25 90.3CP 34.3 43.4 ± 2.2 16.1 ± 1.0 15.3SP (% of CP) 10.9 7.63 ± 2.67 53.4 ± 1.5 -ADICP 4.5 2.75 ± 0.95 0.33 ± 0.05 0.30NDF 43.8 26.5 ± 2.6 26.2 ± 3.2 21.4ADF 12.7 12.5 ± 4.4 9.26 ± 3.63 7.36Lignin - 2.99 ± 1.55 2.23 ± 0.83 2.63Starch 4.7 9.60 ± 1.61 23.8 ± 2.48 -Crude fat 3.5 4.00 ± 0.77 19.0 ± 1.1 9.49Ash 5.2 2.13 ± 0.28 5.90 ± 0.24 3.84Ca 0.12 0.02 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0.01 -P 0.81 0.44 ± 0.05 1.21 ± 0.10 -Mg 0.36 0.12 ± 0.02 0.50 ± 0.02 -K 0.98 0.42 ± 0.06 1.49 ± 0.06 -Na - 0.13 ± 0.04 0.01 ± 0.001 -S 0.78 0.80 ± 0.05 0.17 ± 0.01 -Energy parameters (Mcal/kg)NEL 1.58 1.98 2.27 1.89Notes and sources: Data are reported as means plus or minus the standard deviation. DM = dry matter; CP = crude protein; SP = soluble protein; ADICP= acid-detergent-insoluble CP; NDF = neutral-detergent fibre; ADF = acid-detergent fibre. (1) RFDDGS = reduced-fat dried distillers grain. Compilationof values reported by Mjoun et al., 2010b, 2010c. (2) HPDDG = high-protein dried distillers grain. Dakota Gold HP Dried distillers Grain. Poet Nutrition,Sioux Falls, SD. Compilation of values reported by Robinson, Karges and Gibson, 2008; Abdelqader et al., 2009b; Kelzer et al., 2009; Mjoun et al., 2010b;Tedeschi et al., 2009; and Christen et al., 2010. (3) Germ = Dakota Germ Maize Germ Dehydrated, Poet Nutrition, Sioux Falls, SD. Compilation of valuesreported by Robinson, Karges and Gibson, 2008; Abdelqader et al., 2009a; Abdelqader et al., 2009b; Kelzer et al., 2009; and Tedeschi et al., 2009.(4) Bran = Dakota Bran, Poet Nutrition, Sioux Falls, SD. Compilation of values from Janicek et al., 2007; Tedeschi et al., 2009; and Poet Nutrition, pers.comm. (5) NEL = Net energy for lactation, calculated from NRC, 2001, at 3× maintenance.has been removed prior to grinding for ethanol production,so the HPDDG is much lower in fat and minerals. In addition,CDS is not added back to this product, making it aDDG rather than a DDGS.Maize germMaize germ can be produced from traditional wet-millingpractices or, more recently, by dry-milling fractionationprocesses. For wet milling, after the kernel is steeped, thegerm and fibre fractions are removed by differences indensity and particle size, respectively (Rausch and Belyea,2006). However, for dry milling, the germ is not subjectedto the steeping process and therefore retains more solubleprotein, phosphorus, starch and fat from the kernel.Maize germ from dry milling contains about 26 percentNDF and 24 percent starch on a DM basis, making it ahighly fermentable feedstuff (Table 9). Tedeschi et al. (2009)found that maize germ has the fastest rate of fermentationcompared with bran or DDGS. In addition, Abdelqader etal. (2009a) demonstrated greater DM degradation rates formaize germ compared with two different types of DDGSand soybean meal. When feeding dairy cows increasingamounts of maize germ, predicted NEL energy content ofgerm was calculated to be 2.39 Mcal/kg compared with anNRC (2001) prediction of 2.27 Mcal/kg (Abdelqader et al.,2009c). The authors hypothesized that the greater energyprediction in the feeding study compared with the NRCestimations was due to greater digestibility of the fibre fractioncompared with values predicted by NRC (2001).Dry maize grain contains most of the fat in the embryoor germ portion (Moreau, Johnston and Hicks, 2005).Therefore, maize germ will have greater fat concentrationscompared with DDGS. Dry-milling maize germ is typically17–20 percent fat compared with wet-milling maize germ,which is 40–50 percent fat (Rausch and Belyea, 2006).Small portions of the pericarp and endosperm remainattached to the germ in dry milling resulting in lower fatconcentration. The amount of fat in the germ is 5 to 7times greater than in maize grain and about double thefat of maize DDGS. The major fatty acids in maize gemare similar to other maize co-products (Abdelqader et al.,2009b, c).Because there is no steeping in the dry-milling process,soluble proteins are not lost. As a result, the maize germis considerably higher in soluble protein (Table 9) comparedwith wet-milling maize germ. Using in situ methods,Abdelqader et al. (2009a) determined the RDP fractionof maize germ to be 71.8 percent compared with RDP of44–48 percent for DDGS.Maize branMaize bran is a co-product of the fractionation technologydescribed above, and is currently produced by addingmaize CDS to the bran fraction of the kernel. Most of the
126Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesfat and protein fractions are contributed by CDS whereasmost of the fibre comes from the maize grain pericarp. Itshigh content of fibrous carbohydrates and very little starchmakes maize bran a good fit for ruminant diets. The chemicalcomposition of maize bran is presented in Table 9.In vitro disappearance of the NDF fraction is approximately87 percent (DeHaan, 1983). This suggests that inspite of its high fibre content, the energy supplied by thiscarbohydrate fraction is high. One of the advantages ofhigh fibre supplements such as maize bran is that, althoughhighly digestible, their pattern of rumen fermentation shiftstowards more acetate rather than lactate, and as a resultdoes not acidify rumen contents as much, and is less conduciveto negative associative effects. Lignin in maize bran hasa range of values from 1.60 to 3.66 percent of DM (Tedeschiet al., 2009) which might suggest significant variation in thisenergy content. Tedeschi et al. (2009) suggested that themost influential variables that affect the rate of degradationof NDF also affect the predicted TDN values.The relatively low protein concentration of maize branhas an advantage for nutritionists as the overall proteinamino acid balance can be improved through the inclusionof other feeds with higher lysine concentration. Proteinin maize bran has lower lysine concentrations than manyother feeds, which needs to be taken into account at higherinclusion levels and when milk production amounts requirelimiting amino acids to be considered.FEEDING DGS TO DAIRY CALVESDistillers grain have not been widely examined as a feedstufffor pre- and post-weaned dairy calves. Traditionalconcentrates contain easily digestible carbohydrates thatpromote rumen development in contrast to the low solublecarbohydrate and high fibre content in DDGS. Distillers grainwith a protein concentration of 28–32 percent provides agood replacement for the traditional maize+soybean mealcombination in calf starters. One concern may be the lowerprotein quality of DDGS compared with soybean meal whenincluded in starter diets. Abe, Iriki and Funaba (1997) demonstratedthat lysine is the first limiting amino acid in calvesfed maize and maize gluten meal diets in the first 3 months.Because maize DDGS has a similar amino acid profile toother maize products, low lysine concentrations may be aconcern. In calves less than 11 weeks old, soybean-baseddiets were first limiting in methionine, followed by lysine(Abe et al., 1998). Consequently, DDGS and soybean mealmay provide an ideal protein combination for young calves.There is limited research investigating the use of DDGSin young calves. Thomas et al. (2006a, b) evaluated theinclusion DDGS at 0, 28 or 56 percent of the diet DM instarter diets of young dairy calves. Calves were weaned at6 weeks and fed starter feeds for ad libitum consumptionuntil 12 weeks old. Although calves fed starter containing56 percent DDGS had greater dry matter intake (DMI) afterweaning when compared with the 0 or 28 percent DDGS,body weight changes did not differ throughout the experiment(Thomas et al., 2006a). Feed efficiencies of calves fedthe 56 percent DDGS diet decreased slightly compared withcalves fed 0 percent DDGS. The decreased feed efficiencymay have been attributable to decreased concentrations oflysine in the starter as first limiting amino acid for supportof lean body mass accretion. Development of the digestivetract and the rumen, specifically, was not different whencomparing empty organ weights (Thomas et al., 2006b).Calves fed DDGS, however, exhibited shorter, wider anddenser rumen papillae, with less total surface area, indicatinga shift in ruminal volatile fatty (VFA) patterns for calvesfed DDGS. Though differences in pH were not observed,short papillae and mucosal proliferations are adaptivechanges to low pH (Zitnan et al., 2005). Darker colours ofthe papillae, greater papillae density and shorter papillaelength in calves fed 56 percent DDGS may be indicative ofparakeratosis, though the health status of calves did notdiffer between treatments.Recently, Suarez-Mena et al. (2011) conducted a seriesof studies to determine the effect of DDGS in calf diets.When DDGS was included at higher levels (39–49 percentof the diet), average daily gain (ADG) was reduced by6–10 percent and DM digestibility also fell. In a separatestudy, starter diets containing up to 20 percent DDGS hadno effect on ADG and feed efficiency in calves less than2 months old. It was also demonstrated that inclusionof DDGS at 20 percent of the diet DM had no effect onrumen development in 35-day old calves compared withthe control diet. However, in calves 2 to 3 months old, theinclusion of DDGS at 20 percent of the diet decreased ADGby 4 percent. The authors concluded that DDGS could beincluded up to 20 percent of the starter diet in calves lessthan 2 months old, but less than 20 percent of the diet forcalves 2 to 3 months old.Overall, DDGS provides an excellent protein supplementin starter feeds for dairy calves. Feeding greater than25–30 percent of DM as DDGS should be approached withcaution. Data on feeding DDGS at greater concentrations islimited and there are indications of parakeratosis at higherinclusion levels. In addition, the amino acid profile of DDGSmay well serve to balance the low methionine contenttypical of soybean meal-based supplement while decreasingcost of gain.FEEDING DGS TO DAIRY HEIFERSZanton and Heinrichs (2005), based on a meta-analysisof heifer research, suggest body weight (BW) gains forlarge-breed dairy heifers should be around 0.8 kg per day.Excessive or restrictive weight gains caused by unbalancedrations may negatively affect the development of mammary
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:
Page 93 and 94: 74Biofuel 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 143: 124Biofuel 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 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?