Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Co-products of the United States biofuels industry as alternative feed ingredients for aquaculture 409rich source of taurine), with plant proteins (which are usuallyvery low in taurine), can result in taurine-deficient diets.Taurine supplementation has improved weight gain in severalfish species, probably through enhanced voluntary feedintake (Takeuchi et al., 2001; Park et al., 2002; Gaylord,Teague and Barrows, 2006; Takagi et al., 2006; Lunger etal., 2007). It is expected that taurine supplementation fordiets based on DDGS might improve feed utilization andgrowth of fish as well.TilapiaPublished studies evaluating the use of DDGS in tilapiahave involved a wide range of fish sizes (initial weight0.5–190 g; final weight 6.1–907 g). In most studies, DDGS(0–100 percent) replaced maize and SBM in diets containing0 to 8 percent fish meal. Overall, feeding DDGS at levelsbetween 15 and 30 percent appeared to maximize weightgain and feed efficiency. The addition of lysine allowedDDGS to be included at even higher levels of 40 to 60 percent.In general, feeding DDGS did not affect the fleshcomposition of tilapia.Early studies on the use of DDGS in tilapia were conductedby Wu and colleagues using distillery-derivedDDGS. Wu et al. (1994) reported that feeding 29 percentDDGS in combination with 6 percent fish meal, or 22 percentDDGS in an all-plant-protein diet, to juvenile tilapiaresulted in similar weight gain and feed conversion ratioas a control diet. Results from that study led Wu, Rosatiand Brown (1996) to test whether higher inclusion ratesof DDGS would sustain similar growth of tilapia comparedwith traditional diets. Two diets containing either 35 or49 percent DDGS at dietary protein concentrations of 40and 36 percent, respectively, were evaluated in tilapia fry.They found that the 35 percent DDGS diet resulted insimilar weight gain and feed efficiency compared with thecontrol diet, which was a 36 percent protein diet. Proteinefficiency ratio was, however, higher in the control diet. At49 percent DDGS, both weight gain and feed efficiencywere depressed, indicating a lysine deficiency in diets containingthe higher amounts of DDGS. Because lysine is themost limiting amino acid in DDGS-based diets, the additionof supplemental lysine may allow for greater DDGS inclusionlevels. This question was investigated by Wu, Rosatiand Brown (1997), who fed tilapia fry diets containing from63 to 82 percent DDGS with added lysine. Overall, theyfound that, regardless of lysine supplementation, growthwas negatively affected by high DDGS concentrations. Incontrast, feed and protein efficiencies were similar for the67 percent DDGS diet and the control diets.In another study, Tidwell et al. (2000) evaluated thegrowth of juvenile tilapia fed diets consisting of pelleted orunpelleted DDGS (100 percent) in pond polyculture withfreshwater prawn. Feeding either form of DDGS resulted ina 24 percent decrease in weight gain and 0.5 unit increasein feed conversion ratio compared with a commercial catfishdiet. The economic efficiency (feed cost/weight gain),however, showed savings of US$ 0.29 and 0.40 per kgof fish produced, respectively, for pelleted and unpelletedDDGS, compared with the control diet.To improve the dietary amino acid supply to the fish,one strategy is to feed DDGS as a blend with other proteinsthat are particularly rich in lysine. In this regard, Coyle et al.(2004) evaluated different protein blends in diets for juvenilehybrid tilapia. DDGS was included at 30 percent, with acombination of different protein sources, including fish meal(8 percent), meat and bone meal (26 percent) and SBM(46 percent). They concluded that feeding DDGS with SBMresulted in lower weight gain and higher feed efficiencycompared with the other protein combinations.Additional studies (Lim et al., 2007; Shelby et al., 2008)evaluated the utilization of high levels of DDGS and whethersupplementation with lysine would mitigate the associatednegative effects on growth. Lim et al. (2007) found thatoptimal performance of juvenile tilapia was obtained at20 percent DDGS without added lysine, while the additionof lysine to diets containing 40 percent DDGS improvedfeed utilization but not weight gain. Shelby et al. (2008),however, successfully included up to 60 percent DDGS withadded lysine to diets containing 8 percent fish meal, resultingin similar weight gain and feed efficiency compared with acontrol diet based on maize and SBM. These observationswere confirmed by Abo-state, Tahoun and Hammouda(2009), who found that including up to 55 percent DDGSwith added lysine in a 10 percent fish meal diet resulted ineven better weight gain and protein utilization by tilapiafingerlings compared with an SBM-based diet.Recently, Schaeffer, Brown and Rosentrater (2009)found that weight gain, feed efficiency and fillet yield wereadversely affected when DDGS was fed in excess of 30 percentof the diet, but their diets included no supplements.To more closely define the optimum inclusion rate forDDGS, Schaeffer et al. (2010) evaluated growth performanceof juvenile tilapia fed diets with amounts of DDGSvarying from 17.5 to 27.5 percent. They reported poorergrowth of tilapia fed DDGS-based diets, and that feeding20 percent DDGS resulted in maximum growth among theDDGS diets, although this corresponded to only 70 percentof that obtained with the commercial diet. The commercialdiet contained 15 percent fish meal, while the DDGS dietshad 5 percent fish meal.It is clear that tilapia can effectively utilize DDGS; however,the large variability in the response of tilapia to feedingDDGS-based diets may indicate issues of consistencyand quality of DDGS from different sources. Moreover,amino acid supplementation may be one way to improvethe resulting performance of DDGS-based diets.
410Biofuel co-products as livestock feed – Opportunities and challengesTABLE 5Summary of studies evaluating the effects of feeding distillers grain products on growth performance, feed utilization and flesh composition in different fish speciesSpeciesFish weight(initial – final;g)DDGS(%)Ingredient(s) replacedTrial duration(days)Fish meal (%) Lysine (1) (%) Optimum (2 (%) Flesh composition Reference (3)Nile tilapiaOreochromis niloticusHybrid tilapiaO. aureus × niloticus34.9–67.7 0–27.5 Maize and SBM 55 5 no 17.5 – Schaeffer et al., 2010.6.7–11 0–40 Maize and SBM 42 5 no 20 – Schaeffer, Brown andRosentrater, 2009.2–23 0–55 Maize and SBM 70 10 0–0.4 28/55 – Abo-state, Tahoun andHammouda, 2009.6.7–68.6 0–60 Maize and SBM 84 8 0.9 up to 60 – Shelby et al., 2008.9.4–60.5 0–40 Maize and SBM 70 8 0–0.4 20/40 Whole body protein decreased at 40% Lim et al., 2007.2.7–68.5 0–30 FM and SBM 70 0–8 no 30 No effect Coyle et al., 2004.*26–120 0–100.00 – 84 0 no – No effect Tidwell et al., 2000.0.5–11.4 0–82 CGF and SBM 56 0 0.25–0.75 none – Wu, Rosati and Brown,1997.*0.4–20.9 0–49 Maize 56 0 no 35 – Wu, Rosati and Brown,1996.*30–122.4 19–29 Maize and SBM 103 0–6 no 29 – Wu et al., 1994..1.5–6.1 0–40 FM and wheat 90 3 0.4 Up to 40 – US grains Council, 2007a.Red tilapia 190–907 0–15 Maize and rice bran 120 0 no Up to 15 No effect US grains Council, 2006.Channel Catfish,Ictalurus punctatus9.1–80.4 0–30 Maize, SBM, wheat midds 56 5 0.3 30 Fillet protein decreased Li, Oberle and Lucas,2011.12.6–156.7 0–30 Maize and SBM 63 0 0.3–0.39 10/30 (4) Fillet fat increased, Protein decreased Li et al, 2010a.86–491 0–30 Maize, SBM, wheat 150 0 0.1–0.2 Up to 30 No effect Zhou et al., 2010a.middlings1.2–8.7 0–30 Maize, SBM, wheatmiddlings56 0 0.2 30 – Zhou et al., 2010b.13.3–67.1 0–40 Maize and SBM 84 8 0.4 40 Whole body fat increased Lim, Yildirim-Aksoy andKlesius, 2009.48–1227 0–40 SBM and wheat midds 330 1 0.80–0.28 30/40 Fillet fat increased Robinson and Li, 2008.33–226 0–30 Maize and SBM 110 8 no 30 No effect Webster et al., 1993.*12.4–54.5 0–35 (5) FM and maize 84 0 0–0.4 35/35 – Webster et al., 1992.*10–79.3 0–70 Maize and SBM 84 10 0–0.4 35/70 Whole body protein decreased and fatincreasedWebster, Tidwell, andYancey, 1991.*
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:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
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: Use of detoxified jatropha kernel m
Page 398 and 399: 379Chapter 22Use of Pongamia glabra
Page 400 and 401: Use of Pongamia glabra (karanj) and
Page 422 and 423: 403Chapter 23Co-products of the Uni
Page 424 and 425: Co-products of the United States bi
Page 440: Co-products of the United States bi
Page 443 and 444: 424Biofuel co-products as livestock
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?