Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Co-products from biofuel production for farm animals – an EU perspective 219Mir et al., 1984; Voigt et al., 1990; Kendall, Ingalls andBoila, 1991; Tuori, 1992; Zinn, 1993; Khorasani, Robinsonand Kennelly, 1994; Liu, Steg and Hindle, 1994; Moss andGivens, 1994; Vanhatalo, Aronen and Varvikko, 1995;Stanford et al., 1995, 1996; Gralak et al., 1997; Mustafaet al., 1997; Zebrowska et al., 1997). Nine studies observedgreater RUP values (g/kg CP) for SBM than RSM, threestudies reported the opposite, and three studies noticedno differences between RUP values for SBM and RSM.Moreover, RUP values varied greatly in all studies; more precisely,results for SBM ranged between 200 and 500 g/kgCP and RSM from 120 to 560 g/kg CP. Thus, data reportedby Südekum et al. (2003) appear acceptable and may moreclosely mimic recent and current SBM and RSM qualitiesthan historical tabular values. In conclusion, it can be statedthat it is currently recommended to state a mean RUP concentrationof 300 g/kg CP for RSM and SBM (Südekum andSpiekers, 2002).Other recent experiments tested the hypothesis thatSBM can be fully replaced by RSM in dairy cow diets whenfed on an approximate isonitrogenous and isocaloric basis(without considering differences in ruminal degradationor amino acid pattern, or both. Table 14 summarizes thedata and indicates that milk yield and milk component concentrationswere similar for diets containing SBM or RSM,and thus the hypothesis can still be sustained. The energyconcentration of the whole diet seems to be a key factorfor the successful replacement of RSM for SBM, as lowerenergy concentrations generally mean insufficient DMintakes, and this may be further aggravated if RSM (moderateenergy density) is included at the expense of SBM (highenergy density).Steingass et al. (2010) tested at what concentrationsrapeseed cake could replace SBM. A feeding trial, with 60dairy cows and 7 time periods (4 control + 3 periods withrapeseed cake or rapeseed cake+RSM) revealed higher DMintake and milk yield, as well as lower milk fat and proteinvalues, when rapeseed cake was fed. The authors suggestedthat even though rapeseed cake and RSM differ widelyin their protein values, both feedstuffs can be regarded assuitable full protein supplements in diets for dairy cows.Moreover it should also be pointed out that the overallquality of RSM and rapeseed cake depends also on the concentrationof glucosinolates and, in case of rapeseed cake,the content and quality of the lipid proportion. Generally,average glucosinolate concentrations of RSM are low whileglucosinolate concentrations of rapeseed cake are considerablyhigher. However, there is great variation for bothfeedstuffs. In addition, crude fat in rapeseed cake fluctuates,making ration formulation a difficult task. Increasingcrude fat content lowers CP concentrations and vice versa.Hence, grouping of rapeseed cakes according to crude fatconcentration (g/kg) appears necessary. Additionally, storagestability should also be considered, since the fat is in anon-protected form after the mechanical extraction of theseed. It has also been reported by farmers and consultantsthat physical characteristics resulting from plaque formingduring oil extraction may handicap rapeseed cake handling,e.g. a homogenous distribution in complete diets or silagemixtures is difficult to achieve.Rapeseed cake and meal – pigs and poultryPigs and poultry react more sensitively than ruminantsto the glucosinolate content in rapeseed meal and cake.Even though the amino acid composition in rapeseedproducts is well balanced and favourable for monogastricanimals, there are two limiting factors: the concentrationand structural type of glucosinolates, and the dietaryfibre. There are two different types of glucosinolate:aliphatic glucosinolate derived from methionine, andindole glucosinolate derived from tryptophan. Aliphaticglucosinolate, which has the most negative antrinutritiveTABLE 14Comparison of rapeseed (RSM) and soybean (SBM) meals in diets for high-producing dairy cows – summary of GermantrialsLocation, duration of trial and dietProtein supplement(kg/day/cow)Milk(kg/day)Fat(g/kg milk)Protein(g/kg milk)LWZ Haus Riswick; lactation weeks 5–35. Basal diet of1/3 MS + 2/3 GS SBM 2.3 kg 31.1 39 31RSM 3.1 kg 31.3 39 32LWZ Haus Riswick; lactation weeks 2–44. TMR with 50% MS + 25% GS SBM 1.6 kg 25.2 42 34RSM 2.2 kg 25.8 41 34TMR with 40% (MS + EMS) + 25% GS SBM 4.0 kg 40.0 38 33RSM 4.3 kg 40.5 39 33LVA Köllitsch; 17 weeks. Basal diet of 50% MS + 50% GS SBM 1.6 kg 31.2 39 34RSM 2.0 kg 32.7 40 34Universität Hohenheim; duration not specified. TMR with 22% MS + 21% GS SBM 1.2 kg 30.9 45 35RSM 1.8 kg 32.4 43 35Notes: MS = maize silage; GS = grass silage; TMR – totally mixed ration; EMS – ear-maize silage. Locations: LWZ = Chamber of Agriculture of NorthRhine-Westphalia, Landwirtschaftszentrum (LWZ) Haus Riswick, Kleve, Germany; LLFG = Centre for Livestock Husbandry and Equipment, RegionalInstitute for Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture Saxony-Anhalt (LLFG), Iden, Germany. LVA = State Office for Environment, Agriculture and Geology,Lehr- und Versuchsgut (LVA) Köllitsch, Germany. Institute of Animal Nutrition, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. Sources: Spiekers andSüdekum, 2004; Steingass et al., 2010.
220Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 15Amino acid profiles (g/100 g crude protein) of rapeseedmeal, soybean meal and wheatRapeseed meal Soybean meal WheatLysine 5.6 6.3 2.8Methionine+Cysteine 4.6 3.0 3.8Threonine 4.4 4.0 2.9Tryptophan 1.3 1.3 1.2Source: Degussa Feed Additives, 1996.effect, may be reduced by plant breeding to levels close tozero, while indole glucosinolate contributes 2–4 µmoles/gseed (Sørensen, 1990). The high content of fibre and fibreassociatedCP contributes to relatively low digestibility forCP and energy in RSM. This is mainly due to the high lignincontent of the hulls, which vary considerably (47–517 g/kg) depending on genotype and processing of the seed(Jensen, Olsen and Sørensen, 1990). Table 15 presentsaverage amino acid contents of SBM, RSM and wheat. Thelysine content of RSM is slightly less than that of SBM, butthreonine and sulphur amino acids (methionine, cysteine)are greater in RSM.The acceptance of using RSM in pig diets has increasedgreatly in recent years. This is mainly due to the beneficialprice as well as reduced concentration of glucosinolatesand improved quality monitoring. Moreover, RSM showssimilar values for protein quality compared with SBM,although lysine concentration and digestibilities are lowerin RSM. For practical use, this means that other protein supplementsor free amino acids are needed to compensate forthe loss. In contrast, RSM includes higher concentrations ofsulphur amino acids than SBM.Several trials throughout Germany were performed inorder to ascertain the tolerance for the maximum supplementationof RSM in pig diets. In early trials, amounts of50 g/kg for growing and 100 g/kg RSM for finishing pigsreplaced SBM as a protein supplement in the diet. The resultwas that no differences were observed between groupsreceiving RSM or SBM. The next trial increased the amountof RSM to 100 g/kg for growing pigs and to 150 g/kg forfinishing pigs. Again, no differences in performance andcarcass quality were observed when compared with pigsthat were fed SBM. It was concluded that diets can contain100 g/kg RSM in grower diets (40–70 kg live weight) and150 g/kg RSM in finishing diets (70–120 kg live weight). Itis recommended that piglets, which are more sensitive toglucosinolate and high fibre concentrations, can receive upto 50 g/kg RSM in diets, and can tolerate levels of up to100 g/kg RSM (12–15 kg live weight). However, levels ofglucosinolates should not exceed 10 mmol/kg RSM (Weißand Schöne, 2008; Weber, 2010; Weber et al., 2011).Other than RSM, rapeseed cake is only produced atsmaller oil mills and represents around one tenth of thetotal rapeseed feed consumption. The major differenceto RSM is that rapeseed cake has a much higher andvarying concentration of crude fat (100–160 g/kg vs 20 g/kg in RSM), as well as twice the glucosinolate concentration(6.2–9.4 mmol/kg RSM vs 11.6–17.1 mmol/kg cake).Recommendations for the practical use of rapeseed cakedepend mainly on glucosinolate levels. If the acceptableamount is exceeded, animals react with decreased feedintake and performance, and in the worst case an enlargementof the thyroid. Weiß and Schöne (2010) summarizedfive different trials that were carried out in order to estimatethe maximum supplementation of rapeseed cake. It wasconcluded that fattening pigs may receive between 70and 100 g/kg rapeseed cake, while sows and piglets maybe fed between 50 to 100 g/kg rapeseed cake. The exactamount depends on the glucosinolate level, which shouldnot exceed 1.5 mmol/kg diet. Moreover, crude fat contentshould be more standardized to be able to use the commoditiesmore easily and reliably.Rapeseed products are least used in poultry nutrition.For this reason not much research has been conducted,and results vary greatly. Unfortunately, no declaration onglucosinolate levels in the RSM used are reported in mostof the literature. Richter et al. (1996) noticed a decreasein performance when adding 50 g/kg RSM, while Faghaniand Kheiri (2007) observed no differences when RSM wasadded at a level of 100 g/kg. A few studies with rapeseedcake revealed that it is possible to use approximately 150 g/kg diet without no loss in performance (Peter and Dänicke,2003). Jeroch, Jankowski and Schöne (2008) reviewed severaltrials and concluded that broilers, when fed rapeseedcake, tolerate between 3 and 5 mmol/kg glucosinolate.Moreover, it is highly important to add iodine, since glucosinolatesact as antagonists. It is suggested that iodinesupplementation should be twice general recommendations(GfE, 1999). However, if glucosinolates are present inhigh concentrations, the negative effects may not be compensatedfor, even if iodine is supplemented at high levels.Concluding, it is evident from these data that morewidespread use of RSM and rapeseed cake in diets forpigs and poultry requires further reduction in glucosinolatelevels.ENERGY UTILIZATION EFFICIENCY ANDSUSTAINABILITY OF CO-PRODUCTS FROMBIOFUEL PRODUCTION IN ANIMAL NUTRITIONThe biofuel yield per tonne of rapeseed varies between 250and 350 kg rapeseed oil, and bio-ethanol yield per tonne ofmaize or wheat grain is between 300 and 350 kg (Pinkney,2009). Some losses are caused by CO 2 escape during alcoholfermentation. All other products may be considered asco-products, and may be used in various ways as feedstuffin animal nutrition in wet or dry form, or as fertilizer. Biofuel
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:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188: 168Biofuel 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 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?