Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Feeding biofuels co-products to pigs 197than pigs fed diets containing spray-dried porcine plasma.Feeding the diet containing residual solubles and thepositive control diet containing spray-dried porcine plasmaresulted in greater villi height and villi height:crypt depthratio compared with pigs fed diets containing carbadox.More recently, Perez and Pettigrew (2010) showed thatfeeding diets containing up to 20 percent DDGS does notprevent pigs from bearing an E. coli infection or showingclinical signs of the disease. However, feeding DDGS dietsappears to delay the shift from commensal to β-haemolyticcoliforms in faeces, speed the excretion of β-haemolyticbacteria and recovery, as well as promote more stable anduniform gut microbiota.In conclusion, results from one study indicate that feedinga diet containing DDGS may be effective in reducingthe incidence, severity, and length of lesions caused by amoderate Lawsonia intracellularis infection. The mode ofaction of this response is unknown, but it seems that thereare compounds in a fraction of CDS that may improve villiheight:crypt depth ratio in the proximal portion of the smallintestine. It is also appears that feeding DDGS diets hasbeneficial effects in modulating the gut microbiota whenweaned pigs are challenged with β-haemolytic coliforms.EFFECTS OF DDGS ON NUTRIENTCONCENTRATION AND GAS AND ODOUREMISSIONS OF SWINE MANUREOdour and gas characteristics of swine manure, andenergy, N and P balance were measured in pigs fed amaize-soybean meal diet or a diet containing DDGS (Spiehset al., 2000). Dietary treatment had no effect on H 2 S, NH 3or odour detection levels over the 10-week experimentalperiod. Pigs fed the DDGS-containing diets had greaterN intake, but ADFI and percentage N retention were notdifferent between treatments. Feeding DDGS-containingdiets tended to increase N excretion, but P retention didnot differ between dietary treatments. Gralapp et al.(2002) fed diets containing 0, 10 or 20 percent DDGS tofinishing pigs to determine the effects on growth performance,manure characteristics and odour emissions. Therewere no differences in total solids, volatile solids, chemicaloxygen demand or total N or P concentration of manureamong dietary DDGS levels. However, there was a trendfor increasing odour concentration with increasing dietarylevels of DDGS. More recently, Li, Powers and Hill (2010)compared the effects of feeding three diets (maize-soybeanmeal-based control diet, diet containing 20 percent DDGSwith inorganic trace mineral sources, and a diet containing20 percent DDGS with organic trace mineral sources) onammonia, hydrogen sulphide, nitrous oxide, methane andnon-methane total hydrocarbon emissions from growingfinishingpigs. Emissions of hydrogen sulphide, methaneand non-methane total hydrocarbon emissions increasedwhen pigs were fed DDGS diets, but adding organic sourcesof trace minerals to diets alleviated the adverse effects ofDDGS on hydrogen sulphide emissions.Inclusion of DDGS in diets fed to lactating sows alsoreduced the concentration of P in the faeces (Hill et al.,2008b), but it is unknown if total P excretion was reduced,because DM digestibility of the diets was not determined.Feeding diets containing 40 percent DDGS to gestatingsows reduced apparent DM digestibility of the diet andincreased faecal output, but did not affect the total volumeof slurry produced or N, P or K output in slurry (Li, Powersand Hill, 2010; Li et al., 2011).The effects of extrusion and inclusion of DDGS on nitrogenretention in growing pigs has also been determined byDietz et al. (2008). As DDGS increased in the diet, faecalN concentration increased but the concentration of N inthe urine decreased. Extrusion and inclusion of DDGS inthe diet reduced the amount of N digested per day, but Ndigestibility as a percentage of N intake decreased whenDDGS was included in the diet but was not affected byextrusion. Nitrogen retention also tended to be reducedby dietary inclusion of DDGS and was reduced by extrusion,resulting in a trend for reduced net protein utilizationfrom extrusion. These results suggest that extrusion of dietscontaining DDGS may reduce N retention in growing pigs.Four experiments were conducted to evaluate effectsof diet formulation method, dietary level of DDGS and theuse of microbial phytase on nutrient balance in nursery andgrower-finisher pigs (Xu et al., 2006a, b; Xu, Whitney andShurson, 2006a, b). Nursery pigs were fed a maize-soybeanmeal control diet or a diet containing 10 or 20 percentDDGS and formulated on a total P basis or on a relative bioavailableP basis, using a relative P bio-availability estimateof 90 percent for DDGS (Xu, Whitney and Shurson, 2006a).Phosphorus digestibility, retention and faecal and urinaryexcretion were similar for pigs fed the control diet and pigsfed the DDGS containing diets. Within dietary DDGS levels,pigs fed diets formulated on a total P basis had greater Pretention and urinary P excretion than pigs fed diets formulatedon a relative bio-available P basis. No differences wereobserved among treatments in the concentration of solubleor insoluble P in the manure. It was also shown that pigsfed a DDGS-containing diet without or with phytase hadlower DM digestibility compared with pigs fed a maize-soybeanmeal diets without or with phytase, which resulted inthe excretion of greater manure volume (Xu et al., 2006b).However, N digestibility and excretion were not affected bydietary treatment, but phytase improved P digestibility andreduced P excretion.Diets without DDGS or with 20 percent DDGS andphytase were formulated to contain Ca:available P ratiosof 2.0:1, 2.5:1 and 3.0:1 to determine the optimalCa:available P ratio in nursery diets (Xu et al., 2006a).
198Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesDietary DDGS and phytase resulted in greater P digestibilityand reduced P excretion compared with maize-soybeanmeal diets containing no DDGS or phytase. Nitrogen andZn digestibility were not affected by dietary treatments, butCa digestibility was greater for maize-soybean meal dietsthan for DDGS diets. There were no interactions betweendietary DDGS and phytase and the Ca:available P ratio, suggestingthat the range of Ca:available P ratios (2:1 to 3:1)established by NRC (1998) are acceptable when 20 percentDDGS and phytase are added to nursery diets to minimizeP excretion in the manure.The effects of feeding maize-soybean meal diets containing20 percent DDGS and phytase on DM, N andP digestibility in growing-finishing pigs have also beenmeasured (Xu, Whitney and Shurson, 2006b). Unlike fornursery-age pigs, feeding diets containing DDGS without orwith phytase resulted in no change in DM digestibility andDM excretion. Although N digestibility was not affected bydietary treatment, there was a trend for reduced N excretionwhen phytase was added to the diets.KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCHNEEDSMuch has been learned over the past decade about thenutritional value, optimal dietary inclusion rates, benefitsand limitations of using DDGS in swine diets. However,current record high feed prices, as well as the abundantsupply and cost competitiveness of DDGS, requires moreevaluation of diet formulation approaches to furtherincrease its use in swine diets without the risk of reducedperformance. As high dietary inclusion rates of DDGS continueto be used, new feed formulation strategies and theuse of additives effective in reducing the negative effects ofDDGS on pork fat quality need to be developed. Nutritionaltools need to be developed to provide accurate assessmentsof value differences among DDGS sources and provideaccurate estimates of nutrient loading values (energyand digestible amino acids) for use in more accurate dietformulation as a means to manage variability in nutrientcontent and digestibility among sources. Further research isalso needed to evaluate feed processing technologies andexogenous enzyme applications that can enhance energyand nutrient digestibility by focusing on the fibre componenton distillers co-products. There appear to be potentialhealth and immune system benefits from feeding distillersco-products to swine, which need to be further exploredand understood. Finally, nutritional value and feeding applicationsfor new distillers co-products need to be defined ifthey are to be used successfully in swine diets.CONCLUSIONSDried distillers grain with solubles is the predominant maizedistillers co-product used in swine diets. Although nutrientcontent and digestibility varies among DDGS sources, it isconsidered to be primarily an energy source (approximatelyequal to that of maize), but also contributes significantamounts of digestible amino acids and available phosphorusto swine diets in all phases of production. Energydigestibility of DDGS can be improved by grinding toreduce particle size, but other feed processing technologiesneed to be further evaluated for their potential benefitsin improving nutrient digestibility, with particular focus onthe insoluble fibre fraction. The use of exogenous enzymesand other additives have potential for also improving thenutritional value of DDGS, but their responses have beeninconsistent. Mycotoxin levels in United States maize DDGSare typically low and reflect the prevalence in the grain usedto produce ethanol and DDGS. Although sulphur levels inDDGS are variable, and some sources may contain levelsexceeding one percent, there is no evidence that sulphurlevels in DDGS are detrimental to pig health and performance.Research is underway to determine the impact, ifany, of lipid oxidation in DDGS on pig health and performance,although initial evidence indicates that supplementaldietary antioxidants may be warranted to achieve optimalgrowth performance.If high quality maize DDGS is used, approximately30 percent can be included in diets fed to lactating sows,weanling pigs, and growing-finishing pigs, whereas 50 percentcan be included in diets fed to gestating sows. Dietaryinclusion of sorghum DDGS should be limited to 20 percentin weanling pig diets, but 30 percent may be included indiets fed to growing-finishing pigs. Maize HPDDG may beincluded in diets fed to growing-finishing pigs in quantitiessufficient to substitute all soybean meal, but there are nodata on the inclusion of maize HPDDG in diets fed to sowsor weanling pigs. Maize germ can be included in dietsfed to growing-finishing pigs in concentrations of at least10 percent.Carcass composition and eating characteristics of porkproducts are not influenced by the inclusion of DDGS,HPDDG or maize germ in diets fed to growing-finishingpigs. However, belly firmness is reduced and fat iodinevalues are increased by the inclusion of DDGS and HPDDGin these diets. It may therefore be necessary to reduce thedietary inclusion levels of these co-products in the dietsfed during the final 3 to 4 weeks prior to slaughter, or tosupplement diets with conjugated linoleic acid to minimizenegative effects on pork fat quality.There is some evidence that feeding DDGS diets mayenhance gut health of growing pigs, but more researchis needed to determine if this response is repeatable.Formulating DDGS-containing diets on a digestible P basisreduces manure P concentration, but, due to lower DMdigestibility, manure volume is increased in pigs fed dietscontaining DDGS. Adding DDGS to swine diets seems to
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:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166: 146Biofuel 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 215: 196Biofuel 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 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?