Biofuel co-products as livestock feed - Opportunities and challenges

Impact of United States biofuels co-products on the feed industry 43TABLE 1Ingredient composition changes on a percentage as-fed basis in typical growing swine diets in the decades before and after2000Ingredient Before 2000 At current maize, soybeanmeal and DDGS pricesAt current maize, soybean meal and DDGS prices,with competitively priced canola mealMaize 70 53 44Soybean meal 25 11 5Canola meal 0 0 15DDGS 0 30 30Choice white grease 2 3 3Other ingredients, vitamins,minerals, amino acids3 3 3Total 100 100 100TABLE 2Ingredient composition changes (on a percentage of DM basis) in typical beef feedlot diets in the decades before and after2000Ingredient Before 2000Current withmoderate maize priceCurrent withhigh maize priceCracked and/or high moisture maize 75.0 52.0 44Maize silage 15.0 15.0DG 25.0 45.0Alfalfa hay 5.0Grass hay 5.0 5.0Maize stalks 3.0Soybean meal 3.0Urea 0.5Vitamin-mineral mix 1.5 3.0 3.0Total 100 100 100Illuminate ® from Value Added Science and Technology(VAST), Mason City, Iowa, to estimate relative economicvalue and nutrient loading values among DDGS sourcesfor swine. As these tools become more refined and widelyadopted, they could become the ultimate “grading system”used by DDGS users in the feed as well as livestock andpoultry industries to manage and differentiate quality.During the past decade, there have been dramaticchanges in the composition of commercial animal dietsdue to acceptance and widespread use of DG in the feedindustry. Table 1 shows examples of differences in dietcomposition as a result of variation in availability and valueof commonly used feed ingredients for 60-kg growing pigslocated in west-central Minnesota. Prior to 2000, very little,if any DDGS was used in swine diets. Currently, becauseof lower price relative to maize, soybean meal and canolameal, DDGS is added at levels of 30 percent or more to partiallyreplace portions of maize and soybean meal, resultingin significant differences in diet costs.A similar comparison can be made by looking at possiblediets for a 340-kg feedlot steer in a west centralMinnesota feedlot. DG would most likely be fed as “wet”(~30 percent DM) or as “modified” (~50 percent DM) coproduct,but the displacement of other ingredients is readilyapparent in either case. As in swine diets, the price of DDGSrelative to maize affects usage rates in beef feedlot rations.Prior to 2000, rations consisted of 75 percent cracked orhigh moisture maize, with soybean meal and urea providingthe necessary protein (nitrogen) (Table 2). Today, dependingon maize price, 25 to 45 percent DG is being fed toreduce the amount of maize in the ration and, because DGis moderately high in protein, no soybean meal or urea isneeded. The readily available supply of DG products in thewestern corn belt has resulted in much less maize beingharvested as whole-plant maize silage. As a result, grass hayand maize stalks have replaced alfalfa hay and maize silageas forage sources.In both the swine and beef examples, the proportionsof ingredients in the diet changes as distiller co-productsbecome more available and more price competitive. DG isprimarily an energy source in animal diets, and with recentmarket prices (as of June 2011), DDGS sells at a substantialdiscount to maize grain (the predominant energy source intraditional diets). Thus, formulation systems tend to includeDG at levels up to pre-set maximums.The relative value of DG in diets for various animal specieshas also changed during the past decade (Table 3). Incommercial diets fed in the early 2000s, DDGS had thehighest value in lactating dairy cow diets, followed by beefcattle feedlot diets, laying hen diets and growing-finishingswine diets, when maize, as the primary energy sourcein the diet, was 40 percent the price of soybean meal (a