Evaluation of DDGS and protected soybean meal in dairy diets to reduce the soybean meal import

Transcription

1 Evaluation of DDGS and protected soybean meal in dairy diets to reduce the soybean meal import Sam De Campeneere, Leen Vandaele, Johan De Boever Instituut voor Landbouw- en Visserijonderzoek Eenheid Dier Beleidsdomein Landbouw en Visserij

2 Development of soybean and meat production /1999 season: 155 million tons 2011/2012 season: 265 millon tons 70 % increase!! about 70% of produced soy is used in animal feed Introduction 2

3 Well-known context: soybean versus forest Huge consequences for Climate Bio-diversity Indigenous people Introduction 3

4 Flemish Action plan: Alternative protein sources (2010) BEMEFA (Belgian Compound Feed Industry Association) and Flemish government Feeds should become more socially responsible through international standards (e.g RTRS; Belgium 100% by 2015) Maximal valorisation of existing protein sources Dependency of non-eu protein sources should decrease Introduction 4

5 Research projects at ILVO IWT project Feed evaluation of DGS (Distillers Grains and Solubles) as coproduct of the bio-ethanolproduction in dairy, pigs and poultry Flemish Government Valorisation of by-products of energy production in animal feed Boerenbond (farmers union) Reduction of the soybean import by using protected soybean and rapeseed meal in dairy feeds Introduction 5

6 DDGS in dairy diets: feed evaluation Main problem in using DDGS: variation in composition due to: Production process: DDGS DDGS DDGS feed evaluation 6

7 Production process: expl 1 CP: 320 g/kg DM DDGS feed evaluation 7

8 Production process: expl 2 CP: 194 g/kg DM DDGS feed evaluation 8

9 DDGS in dairy diets: feed evaluation problem: variation in composition due to: Production process: DDGS DDGS Production unit Origin (focus: whole grain DDGS) 3 wheat DDGS 3 maize DDGS 7 wheat based DDGS ( 50% wheat + mainly maize, but also barley, triticale, sorghum, sugar syrup) DDGS feed evaluation 9

10 Chemical composition (g/kg DM; n=13) Mean ± SD Range Dry matter (g/kg) 911 ± Crude protein 324 ± Crude fat ( method B) 100 ± Crude fibre 84 ± Crude ash 53 ± NDF 318 ± Hemicellulose (NDF - ADF) 169 ± Cellulose (ADF ADL) 87 ± Lignin (ADL) 62 ± Starch 40 ± Sugars 40 ± DDGS feed evaluation 10

11 DDGS feed evaluation 11

12 Composition and feeding value influenced by origin WDDGS MDDGS BDDGS SEM LS VC DM (g/kg) ns 1.8 CP (g/kg DM) 327 a 281 b 341 a 7.7 *** 8.6 CFA (g/kg DM) 76 c 145 a 91 b 7.4 *** 26.9 STA (g/kg DM) 65 a 58 a 22 b 9.0 T 81.4 SUG (g/kg DM) 53 a 17 b 45 a 4.7 ** 42.3 OMdenz (%) ns 1.3 NEL (MJ/kg DM) 7.38 c 8.49 a 7.88 b 0.12 *** 5.7 kd (% h -1 ) 4.69 a 2.23 b 3.88 a 0.23 ns 19.1 BRE (% of CP) 55.6 b 69.8 a 59.3 b 2.00 * 11.8 DVBE (%) ns 3.5 DVBE (g/kg DM) 166 b 187 a 185 a 3.8 T 7.6 DVME (g/kg DM) 51 a 46 b 47 b 0.8 T 6.1 DVE (g/kg DM) 198 b 216 a 216 a 3.5 T 6.0 OEB (g/kg DM) 66 a 14 b 66 a 7.9 T 53.2 DVLYS 6.11 b 6.90 a 6.28 ab 0.14 T 7.7 DVMET 3.48 b 4.48 a 3.79 b 0.12 ** 11.3 DDGS feed evaluation 12

13 Estimation based on chemical parameters NEL Parameters R² % RSD MJ/kg DS SD/RSD +CFa** 69 0,25 1,7 +CFa*** + DigOMcellulase** - Starch* 87 0,16 2,7 +CFa*** - ADF** + Ash* + NDF* 90 0,14 3,1 OEB Parameters R² RSD SD/RSD +CP*** ,2 +CP*** + N-sol. buffer** ,2 DDGS feed evaluation 13

14 Conclusions DDGS feed evaluation Large variation due to production proces Large variation due to original grains used Developed prediction equations for energy and protein parameters Advice: a system giving information on the origin (prod proces and grains) of the DDGS 14

15 Feeding trials DDGS Trial 1: dosis DDGS (up to4 kg) See how cows perform with 20% of DM from wheat DDGS Trial 2: WDGS vsddgs Performance on dried vs non dried DDGS (WDGS) Trial 3: lysine addition Performance on DDGS vs DDGS + DigLys DDGS feeding trials

16 Conclusions Trial 1 Up to4 kg DDGS in dietis possible Production is positively influenced by 4 kg DDGS (+ 0,7 kg MP, + 32 g proteinprod.) 1 kg DDGS replaced 0,6 kg soy (low-protein concentrate) DDGS feeding trials 16

17 Trial 2 conclusions DDGS vscontr: sameconclusionstrial 1 : MP + 0,8, prot prod: + 32 g/day WDGS vs DDGS: reduced intake Performance WDGS =control 1 kg DDGS replaced 0,65 kg soy (+low-protein concentrate) DDGS feeding trials 17

18 Trial 3 conclusions Contr= DDGS = DDGS + lys MP nothigherthancontrol, prot prodsomewhat, but notsign. 1 kg DDGS replaced 0,6 kg soy (+low-protein concentrate) DDGS feeding trials 18

19 Protected soybean meal: material Increased protein value due to treatment of the soybean meal Known product but not freq. applied in feed industry/on farms We studied: untreated soybean meal Danis heat treated soybean meal Danis (Proxysoy) formol treated soybean meal Pre-Mervo (Mervobest) Protected soybean meal feed evaluation 19

20 Methoden Analyse Voeder: vocht, as, RE, Rvet, NDF, SUI, AZ, Cell OS Pensafbraakkarakteristieken van OS, RE en NDF met nylonzakjesmethode 3 lacterende koeien: MK + GK (50/50) + KV volgens behoeften Malen door 3 mm Incubatietijdstippen: 0, 3, 8, 24, 48 en 336 uur Wassen, vriesdrogen, poolen per tijdstip Analyse: RE, NDF, AZ, vocht, as Darmverteerbaarheid met mobiele zakjes 2 koeien met duodenumcannule (rantsoen cfr. boven) 12 u pensincubatie, wassen, vriesdrogen, malen door 1 mm 1 u pepsine-hcl (cfr. vertering in lebmaag) incubatie in duodenum, na darmpassage recuperatie in feces Wassen, vriesdrogen, analyse RE en AZ Protected soybean meal feed evaluation 20

21 Chemical composition Soybean meal Heat treated Formol treated DM (g/kg) Composition DM (g/kg DM) CP CF NDF Sugars Ash RNSP DigCellulase OM (%) 97,0 96,2 96,2 VEM (per kg DM) Protected soybean meal feed evaluation 21

22 CP degradation in rumen 100 Sojaschr. Proxysoy Mervobest CP degradation (%) Incubation time (h) Protected soybean meal feed evaluation 22

23 Protein value (g/kg DM) Soybean meal Heat treated Formol treated Systeem 2007 FOS DVE OEB CVB 2007 FOS DVE OEB Protected soybean meal feed evaluation 23

24 Digestible AA (g/kg DM) Soybean meal Heat treated HT/soy Formol treated FT/soy Lysine 9,7 20,5 2,1 25,0 2,6 Threonine 7,5 14,0 1,9 16,1 2,1 Isoleucine 9,7 17,9 1,9 22,1 2,3 Methionine 2,4 4,8 2,0 5,7 2,3 Cystine 2,3 4,7 2,1 5,0 2,2 Asparaginezuur 21,7 40,5 1,9 50,0 2,3 Serine 9,7 19,0 2,0 21,6 2,2 Glutaminezuur 33,9 58,0 1,7 77,8 2,3 Proline 9,3 16,8 1,8 21,1 2,3 Glycine 7,7 15,2 2,0 18,1 2,4 Alanine 8,2 15,7 1,9 18,3 2,2 Valine 9,3 17,1 1,8 21,3 2,3 Leucine 15,1 28,2 1,9 33,5 2,2 Phenylalanine 10,0 18,5 1,9 22,6 2,3 Histidine 4,6 8,6 1,9 11,4 2,5 Arginine 11,8 22,0 1,9 28,7 2,4 <> 2,2 2,5 Protected soybean meal feed evaluation 24

25 Conclusion Heat or formol treatment increases the protein value of soybean meal Heat or formol treatment (more than) doubles the amountof digestible AA from soybean meal(inclusive lysine) The effect of formol treatment is somewhat stronger, due to somewhat higher CP (2%) and somewhat higher%bre Protected soybean meal feed evaluation 25

26 Feeding trials protected soybean meal 1 Trial: ILVO 4 Trials: on demonstration farms Hooibeekhoeve, Geel PVL Bocholt Performance compared for: 3 trials on commercial farms soybean meal vs. heat protected vs. formolated (Proxysoy) (Mervobest) DDGS feeding trials

27 Protected soybean meal: feeding trial ILVO Trial setup Comparison: soybean meal vs. heat protected vs. formolated 1 kg sbm 0,51 kg proxy 0,55 kg Prot low conc Urea if needed 18 cows Latin Sq., divided over 3 groups 3 periodes of 4 weeks Low protein conc: no soybean meal Roughage: 65/35 MS/PGS on DM basis 0,49 kg mervo 0,58 kg Prot low conc Urea if needed Protected soybean meal trials 27

28 Protected soybean meal: feeding trial ILVO Performance: no sign differences Control Proxysoy Mervobest MSE Total DM (kg/day) 22,0 22,0 22,4 0,8 MP(kg/day) 28,68 28,41 28,45 1,46 Fat (%) 4,46 4,43 4,34 0,27 Protein(%) 3,39 3,39 3,31 0,20 FPCM (kg/day) 30,28 29,91 29,54 1,98 gfat(/day) gprot(/day) MUC (mg/l) Protected soybean meal trials 28

29 Protected soybean meal: on farm trials 7 feeding trials on 5 farms 2 trials on Hooibeekhoeve and PVL Bocholt (1 Mervobest, 1 Proxysoy) 2 farms (Mervobest) 1 farm (Proxysoy) Each time 1 kg soybean meal 0,4-0,5 kg protected sbm + 0,5-0,6 kg balanced conc setup Mervobest Control Mervobest Control Period 1 (3-4 we) Period 2 (3-4 we) Period 3 (3-4 we) Period 4 (3-4 we) Protected soybean meal trials 29

30 Protected soybean meal: on farm trials Milk production Control Proxysoy Control Mervobest ILVO 28,68 28,41 28,68 28,45 Hooibeek 33,37 33,93 38,18 +0,15 38,33 Bocholt 28,86 28,76 28,23 28,42 Farm 1 32,59 33,94 Farm 2 33,81 34,13-0,27-0,23 +0,56 * -0,10 +0,19 +0,32 * +1,36* Farm 3 29,24 29,74 +0,50 * +0,19 +0,40 Protected soybean meal trials

31 Protected soybean meal: on farm trials Milkfat content Control Proxysoy Control Mervobest ILVO 4,46 4,43 4,46 4,34 Hooibeek 4,33 4,22 3,76 +0,10 3,86 Bocholt 4,08 4,18 4,24 4,21 Farm 1 4,35 4,20 Farm 2 4,33 4,32-0,03-0,13-0,11 +0,10-0,03-0,01-0,15 * Farm 3 4,22 4,16-0,06 +0,01-0,05 Protected soybean meal trials

32 Protected soybean meal: on farm trials Milk protein content Control Proxysoy Control Mervobest ILVO 3,39 3,39 3,39 3,31 Hooibeek 3,54 3,43 3,19-0,09 3,10 Bocholt 3,42 3,49 3,61 3,48 Farm 1 3,51 3,39 Farm 2 3,57 3,51 0,00-0,08-0,11* +0,07-0,13 * -0,06-0,12 * Farm 3 3,70 3,56-0,14 +0,03-0,11 Protected soybean meal trials 32

33 Protected soybean meal: conclusions comparable performances for soybean meal and protected soybean meal. Some concern on the milk protein content with formol treated: to be investigated (OEB?, FOS?) Attention is needed for the OEB of the diet, feed urea is a usefull tool to adjust OEB (but no longer allowed as such) Using protected soybean meal can reduce the need for soybean meal by 50% Protected soybean meal trials 33

34 General conclusion In dairy diets, DDGS and protected SBM are 2 efficient ways to reduce the need for SBM. Diets with (almost) no SBM are possible. For DDGS there is a large variation in feeding value. Therefor it is important to have information on the production site and the initial components. Prediction equations can help in estimating feeding value. Using protecting SBM did not alter performances strongly. Some concerns on the milk protein content with formol treated SBM. Attention is needed for the OEB of the diet.

35 Thanks to Co-authors: Johan De Boever and Leen Vandaele Thanks for your attention ILVO Animal Science Unit Policy Area Agriculture and Fisheries