Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Co-products from biofuel production for farm animals – an EU perspective 213TABLE 5Comparison of four trials with distillers grain with solubles in wet (DGS) or dried (DDGS) form, mainly from wheatfermentation, in diets for lactating dairy cowsParameter Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4Duration (days) 147 50 n.s. n.s. 60Cows (n) 16 36 126 123 3Basal diet MS, GS MS, GS MS, GS MS, GS, HayProtein supplement Wheat DDGS RSM Rye DWG BG Wheat DDGS SBM, RSM Maize DDGS Wheat DDGS SBM, RSC(kg DM/day) 3.5 3.6 ca. 3.8 ca. 1.9 ca. 1.8 ca. 1.5 ca. 1.1 ca. 1.0 ca. 1.2DM intake (kg/day) 20.8 21.9 ca. 24.0 ca. 23.6 n.s. n.s. 20.8 20.9 20.9Milk (kg/day) 34.9 34.0 42.1 42.5 35.8 37.0 26.4 25.9 26.2Fat (g/kg milk) 32.6 35.3 38.9 39.7 41.0 42.0 44.6 44.8 44.3Protein (g/kg milk) 31.1 32.9 32.3 32.4 35.1 35.3 33.3 33.4 33.9Notes: MS = maize silage; GS = grass silage; RSM = rapeseed meal; BG = brewers grain; SBM = soybean meal; RSC = rapeseed cake. Sources: Trial 1 –Franke, Meyer and Flachowsky, 2009, working at Institute of Animal Nutrition, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut (FLI), Federal Institute for Animal Health,Braunschweig, Germany. Trial 2 – Engelhard, 2011, working at Centre for Livestock Husbandry and Equipment, Regional Institute for Agriculture,Forestry and Horticulture Saxony-Anhalt (LLFG), Iden, Germany. Trial 3 – Dunkel, 2011, working at Agricultural Research Centre of Thuringia (TLL), Jena,Germany. Trial 4 – Urdl et al., 2006, working at Institute of Livestock Research, Agricultural Education and Research Centre Raumberg-Gumpenstein(LFZ), Irdning, Austria.TABLE 6Comparison of dried distillers grain with solubles (DDGS) in diets for bulls during the whole fattening period and growingmale calves before the beginning of the fattening periodTrial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3Animals (n) 44 42 15 14 15 21Final live weight (kg) 710 712 720 556 560 557 558 162 164 153 157Basal diet MS MS MS + HayProtein supplement DDGS SBM RSM DDGS SBM RSM RSM + DDGS DDGS RSM DDGS RSMSupplement intake ca. 1.3 ca. 1.0 ca. 1.4 1.44 0.96 1.30 0.72 +0.74 0.42 0.44 0.59 0.58(kg DM/day)DM intake (kg/day) 9.37 9.37 9.51 7.66 7.54 7.59 7.97 2.4 2.4 2.9 3.0Crude protein intake 1.110 1.116 1.102 1.118 1.103 1.078 1.155 0.412 0.423 0.469 0.476(kg/day)Energy intake108.3 109.3 111.0 86.2 84.9 84.7 89.3 31.0 30.3 35.5 36.2(MJ ME/day)Live weight gain(kg/day)1.493 b 1.602 a 1.549 ab 1.310 b 1.390 ab 1.440 ab 1.460 a 1.008 1.039 1.003 1.053Notes: MS = maize silage; RSM = rapeseed meal; SBM = soybean meal; RSC = rapeseed cake; ME = metabolizable energy. a,b = Different suffixes ina row within a trial indicate significant differences (P
214Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesacross treatments. Feeding a mixture of DDGS and RSMresulted in the highest weight gain (1.46 kg/day) comparedwith SBM, RSM or DDGS (1.31 kg/day; Meyer et al., 2010).The results of the experiments with fattening bulls showedthat DDGS as the main protein source compares well withother protein supplements and is able to sustain high productiveperformance. This also indicates that differencesbetween CP sources regarding the amino acid pattern ofthe ruminally undegraded CP (RUP) was not a constraintfor intensive growth.Nutritive value and feeding to non-ruminants –pigsCo-products from biofuel production, such as DDGS,have also been fed to non-ruminant animals, particularlypigs (e.g. Lindermayer, 2004; Richter et al., 2006a; Berk,2007; Hackl et al., 2007; Berk, Lebzien and Flachowsky,2008; Kluge and Kluth, 2008) and poultry (e.g. Dammeand Pegeanova, 2006; Richter et al., 2006b; Trautwein etal., 2008). Patience et al. (2007) summarized mainly NorthAmerican results from feeding studies with DDGS in pigs.Some authors investigated the amino acid pattern ofDDGS and its praecaecal digestibility in pigs (e.g. Richteret al., 2006a; Hackl, Priepke and Henning, 2007; Hacklet al., 2007; Kluth, Wolf and Rodehutscord, 2009). Hackl,Priepke and Henning (2007) and Hackl et al. (2007) studieda wheat DDGS with 386 g CP per kg DM. Comparedwith wheat (32 g lysine per kg CP), DDGS contained only17 g lysine per kg CP. The low concentration and the lowpraecaecal digestibility coefficient of lysine in wheat-DDGS(0.69 compared with 0.872 for wheat) underline the significanceof lysine as the first limiting amino acid in DDGSfor pigs. Although DDGS contains about 2.5–3 times moreCP than wheat, it has only 1–1.5 times the concentrationof praecaecally digestible lysine. Very low praecaecal digestibilitieshave been reported by Hackl, Priepke and Henning(2007) and Hackl et al. (2007) only for sulphur-containingamino acids (0.67–0.69), but not for most of the otheressential amino acids. In broilers, however, Kluth, Wolf andRodehutscord (2009) measured a praecaecal digestibilitycoefficient for lysine in DDGS of 0.79.In a feeding trial with 80 growing-finishing pigs (40females and 40 castrated males) from 35 kg initial liveweight up to 115 kg slaughter weight, Berk (2007) partiallyreplaced SBM and/or RSM by DDGS or a DDGS/RSM mix(Table 7). The feed in mash form and drinking water wereoffered for ad lib intake. Feed intake, total weight andslaughtering results were not influenced (P >0.05) by proteinsource. From this data it can be concluded that DDGScan partially replace SBM in diets for growing-finishing pigsin intensive production systems.Richter et al. (2006a) carried out four feeding trialswith piglets (0–100 g/kg DDGS in the diet; Table 8) as wellthree trials with growing-finishing pigs (0–250 g/kg DDGSin the diet; Table 9). The authors concluded that pigletsbelow 10 kg live weight should not consume DDGS, anddiets of heavier animals could receive DDGS up to 100 g/kg diet.The results suggest that DDGS up to 200 g/kg in thediet of grower-finisher pigs did not influence performance.The lower recommended inclusion level for piglets ismost likely due to the low lysine content of the DDGS.Hence, higher inclusion levels may be possible if lysinelevels are adjusted accordingly. Kluge and Kluth (2008),Punz, Windisch and Schedle (2010) and Schedle, Mair andWindisch (2010) replaced SBM in grower-finisher dietscompletely by DDGS, and observed no adverse effect onfattening and slaughtering variables. Additional non-starchTABLE 7Protein sources for grower or finishers, feed intake, daily weight gain and some slaughter data for pigsProtein source Animal Soybean Soybean/RSM Soybean/DDGS SBM+RSM +DDGSSoybean meal Grower 15.0 6.0 8.0 6.0Finisher 11.0 – 5.0 3.0Rapeseed meal Grower – 10.0 – 5.0Finisher – 15.0 – 6.0DDGS Grower – – 8.0 5.0Finisher – – 10.0 6.0Crude protein (g/kg DM) Grower 178 176 178 175Finisher 163 166 166 169Feed intake (kg/animal/day) total 2.83 2.81 2.83 2.76Weight gain (g/animal/day) 1010 959 998 940Lean meat (%) 54.4 55.6 54.7 55.7Backfat thickness (mm) 29.0 28.0 28.4 25.1Backfat fatty acids (% of total)SFA 40.5 40.1 41.1 39.2MUFA 47.4 49.5 46.8 48.8.PUFA 12.1 10.4 12.0 12.4Notes: SBM = soybean meal; RSM = rapeseed meal; DDGS = dried distillers grain with solubles; SFA = short-chain fatty acids; MUFA = mono-unsaturatedfatty acids; PUFA = polyunsaturated fatty acids. Source: Berk, 2007.
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:
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: 164Biofuel 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 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?