Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Feeding biofuels co-products to pigs 187TABLE 8Chemical analysis of crude glycerin, percentage as-is basisSample ID Glycerin Moisture Methanol pH NaCl Ash Fatty acidsUSP 99.62 0.35 ND 5.99 0.01 0.01 0.02Soybean oil 83.88 10.16 0.0059 6.30 6.00 5.83 0.12Soybean oil (1) 83.49 13.40 0.1137 5.53 2.84 2.93 0.07Soybean oil 85.76 8.35 0.0260 6.34 6.07 5.87 NDSoybean oil 83.96 9.36 0.0072 5.82 6.35 6.45 0.22Soybean oil 84.59 9.20 0.0309 5.73 6.00 5.90 0.28Soybean oil 81.34 11.41 0.1209 6.59 6.58 7.12 0.01Tallow 73.65 24.37 0.0290 3.99 0.07 1.91 0.04Yellow grease 93.81 4.07 0.0406 6.10 0.16 1.93 0.15Yellow grease (2) 52.79 4.16 3.4938 8.56 1.98 4.72 34.84Poultry fat 51.54 4.99 14.9875 9.28 0.01 4.20 24.28Notes: Samples analysed as described in Lammers et al. (2008a), courtesy of Ag Processing Inc., Omaha, NE 68154, USA. Glycerin content determined bydifference as: 100 -% methanol -% total fatty acid -% moisture -% ash. Data obtained from Kerr et al., 2009. ND = not determined. USP = United StatesPharmacopeial Convention grade glycerin or initial feedstock lipid source. (1) Soybean oil from extruded soybeans. All other soybean oil was obtainedby hexane extraction of soybeans. (2) Crude glycerin that was not acidulated.the other glycerin sources. Recovery of methanol is alsoindicative of production efficiency because it is typicallyre-used during the production process (Ma and Hanna,1999; Van Gerpen, 2005; Thompson and He, 2006). Thehigh amount of methanol content in crude glycerin fromnon-acidulated yellow grease was expected because thisco-product had not been fully processed at the productionfacility. The reason crude glycerin obtained from the plantutilizing poultry fat contained relatively high methanol isunclear because no processing information was availablefrom the plant. However, this higher level of methanol maybe due to lower overall efficiency of the production processat this plant (Ma and Hanna, 1999; Van Gerpen, 2005;Thompson and He, 2006).The average ME of the 11 sources of glycerin describedin Table 9 was 3486 kcal/kg (Kerr et al., 2009), with littledifference among the sources, with the exception ofthe two sources with high levels of free fatty acids (coproductsobtained from non-acidulated yellow grease andpoultry fat). These sources high in free fatty acid contenthad higher ME values than the other crude glycerin coproducts,which was not surprising given that these twoco-products also had a higher GE concentration than theother co-product sources. The ME:GE ratio among all glycerinco-products was similar, averaging 85 percent, whichis similar to ratios reported by others (88%, Lammers et al.,2008a; 88%, Bartlet and Schneider, 2002; 85%, Mendozaet al., 2010a). Because the GE of the crude glycerin canvary widely among co-product sources, comparison of MEas a percentage of GE provides valuable information onthe caloric value of crude glycerin for swine. A high ME:GEratio indicates that a crude glycerin source is well digestedand utilized.Because more than one chemical component caninfluence energy content of feed ingredients, stepwiseregression was used to predict GE and ME values, and topredict ME as a percentage of GE among glycerin sources.TABLE 9Energy values of crude glycerin co-products in swine, onan as-is basisSample GE (kcal/kg) ME (kcal/kg) % of GEUSP 4325 3682 85.2Soybean oil 3627 3389 93.4Soybean oil (1) 3601 2535 70.5Soybean oil 3676 3299 89.9Soybean oil 3670 3024 82.5Soybean oil 3751 3274 87.3Soybean oil 3489 3259 93.5Tallow 3173 2794 88.0Yellow grease 4153 3440 92.9Yellow grease (2) 6021 5206 86.6Poultry fat 5581 4446 79.7Notes: USP = United States Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) gradeglycerin or initial feedstock lipid source. (1) Soybean oil from extrudedsoybeans. All other soybean oil was obtained by hexane extraction ofsoybeans. (2) Crude glycerin that was not acidulated. Source: Kerr et al.,2009.If the GE of a crude glycerin source is unknown, it can bepredicted by using the following equation: GE kcal/kg =-236 + (46.08 × % of glycerin) + (61.78 × % of methanol)+ (103.62 × % of fatty acids), (R 2 = 0.99). Metabolizableenergy content can subsequently be predicted by multiplyingGE by 84.5% with no adjustment for composition (Kerret al., 2009). Additional research is needed to refine andvalidate these equations relative to glycerin, methanol, ashand total fatty acid concentrations for all body weights.SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CO-PRODUCTSFROM THE ETHANOL INDUSTRYMycotoxinsLike all feed ingredients, maize co-products may containmycotoxins that can negatively affect animal performance,or might be stored under conditions that cause co-productdeterioration. Mycotoxins can be present in maize co-productsif the grain delivered to the ethanol plant is contaminatedwith them. Mycotoxins are not destroyed during the
188Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesethanol production process, nor are they destroyed duringthe drying process to produce distiller co-products. In fact,if they are present in maize used to produce ethanol, theirconcentration will be increased by a factor of approximatelythree in DDGS. However, the risk of mycotoxin contaminationin United States distillers grain by-products is verylow because it is uncommon for most of the major maizegrowing regions in the United States to have climatic andweather conditions that lead to mycotoxin production inmaize on a regular basis. Furthermore, most ethanol plantsmonitor grain quality and reject sources that exceed acceptable(very low) levels of mycotoxins.Recently, Zhang et al. (2009) conducted surveys toassess the prevalence and levels of aflatoxins, deoxynivalenol,fumonisins, T-2 toxin and zearalenone in 235 DDGSsamples. The samples were collected between 2006 and2008 from 20 ethanol plants in the mid-western UnitedStates and from 23 export shipping containers, and analysedusing state-of-the-art analytical methodologies. Theirresults indicated that (1) none of the samples containedaflatoxins or deoxynivalenol levels higher than the U.S.Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for use inanimal feed; (2) no more than 10 percent of the samplescontained levels of fumonisins higher than the recommendationfor feeding equids and rabbits, and the remainingbulk of the samples contained fumonisins lower than FDAguidelines for use in animal feed; (3) no samples containeddetectable levels of T-2 toxins; 4) most samples containedno detectable zearalenone; and 5) the containers used forexport shipping of DDGS did not contribute to mycotoxinproduction.The prevalence and levels of deoxynivalenol (vomitoxin)in the 2009 United States maize crop were unusuallyhigh, resulting in production of deoxynivalenol-contaminatedDDGS in 2010. As a result, researchers (Fruge et al.,2011a, b; Barnes et al., 2011) evaluated the effectivenessof commercial products for mitigating the negative effectsof feeding diets containing DDGS contaminated with deoxynivlenol,and some benefits were observed.SulphurSulphur levels can be highly variable among DDGS sourcesand can range from 0.31 to 1.93 percent (average 0.69 percent)on a DM basis (University of Minnesota data; www.ddgs.umn.edu). Sulphuric acid is commonly added duringthe dry-grind ethanol production process to keep pH atdesired levels for optimal yeast propagation and fermentationin order to maximize the conversion of starch to ethanol,and is less costly compared with other acids. Accordingto AAFCO (2010), sulphuric acid is generally recognized assafe according to U.S. Code of Federal Regulation (21 CFR582) and is listed as an approved food additive (21 CFR573). In addition, maize naturally contains about 0.12 percentsulphur, and is concentrated by approximately threefold,like other nutrients, when maize is used to produceethanol and DDGS. Yeast also contains about 3.9 g/kgsulphur and naturally creates sulphites during fermentation.Sulphur is an essential mineral for animals and servesmany important biological functions in the animal body.However, when excess sulphur (greater than 0.40 percentof diet DM) is present in ruminant diets, neurological problemsresulting from polioencephalomalacia (PEM) can occur.In contrast, sulphur content of DDGS does not appear tobe a concern in swine diets. Kim, Zhang and Stein (2010)conducted four experiments to determine the effects ofdietary sulphur level on feed palatability and growth performanceof weanling and growing-finishing barrows. Theirresults showed that inclusion of 20 to 30 percent of DDGSin diets fed to weanling and grow-finishing pigs reducedpalatability of the diets and negatively affected growthperformance. However, the concentration of sulphur in theDDGS-containing diets had no impact on feed palatabilityor growth performance.Lipid oxidationSome sources of DDGS may contain high levels of oxidizedlipids due to the high drying temperatures used in someethanol plants. Song, Saari Csallany and Shurson (2011)reported that the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances(TBARS; a measure indicative of lipid oxidation) level canvary considerably (1.0 to 5.2 malondialdehyde (MDA)equivalent ng/mg oil) among 31 DDGS sources. The highestTBARS level measured in one DDGS source was 26times higher than that of maize (0.2 MDA equivalentng/mg oil). As a result, the use of supplemental dietaryantioxidants may be warranted in order to minimize metabolicoxidation. Harrell et al. (2010) and Harrell, Zhao andReznik (2011) reported that the dietary addition of ancommercial antioxidant can improve growth performanceof pigs fed diets containing oxidized maize oil or 20 to30 percent DDGS, and in a subsequent study showed thatsupplementing nursery pig diets with another commerciallyavailable antioxidant improved growth performance of pigswhen fed diets containing 60 percent DDGS. However, noresearch has been conducted to determine the efficacy ofthese synthetic antioxidants relative to common forms ofvitamin E.SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CRUDEGLYCERINBecause glycerin varies in energy content, salt content andmethanol concentration, modifications in diet formulationmay be required. Depending on the salt level in the crudeglycerin, supplemental levels of dietary salt may need to belimited, depending upon the animal species and stage ofproduction where it is fed. It is generally well accepted that
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:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 120 and 121:
101Chapter 6Hydrogen sulphide: synt
Page 122 and 123:
Hydrogen sulphide in cattle fed co-
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156: 136Biofuel 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 205: 186Biofuel co-products as livestock
Page 228 and 229: 209Chapter 11Co-products from biofu
Page 230 and 231: Co-products from biofuel production
Page 246: Co-products from biofuel production
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?