Distillers Grains Feeding & Beef Quality G. Erickson, T. Klopfenstein V. Bremer & many students
Ethanol Plants & Fed Cattle Population 15 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 7 9 13 11 10 12 1 Madrid 2 Sutherland 3 Trenton 4 McCook 5 Cambridge 6 Lexington 7 Minden 8 Ravenna 9 Hastings 10 Aurora 11 Central City 12 York 13 Columbus 14 Norfolk 15 Plainview
Abengoa Bioenergy, York, NE DRY MILLING WDG(+S) CORN GRIND, WET, COOK FERMENTATION YEAST, ENZYMES STILL ALCOHOL & CO 2 STILLAGE DISTILLERS GRAINS WDG, DDG WDGS DDGS DISTILLERS SOLUBLES
Cargill wet milling, Blair, NE WET MILLING CGF STEEP CORN GRIND WASH WATER STEEP SEPARATION STARCH, SWEETENER, ALCOHOL GLUTEN MEAL CORN OIL CORN BRAN SEM, screenings, dist solubles WET CORN GLUTEN FEED DRY CORN GLUTEN FEED
Byproducts WDGS, modified (45% DM) WDGS, traditional (35% DM) DDGS (25% solubles) Syrup, distillers solubles, CCDS WCGF (45% DM) WCGF Sweet Bran (60% DM) DCGF Steep new distillers grains
Use Inclusion < 15% (2 3 lb): protein Inclusion > 15% (4+ lb): energy
Traditional WDGS Performance 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 y = 0.0005x 2 0.041x + 6.53 R 2 = 0.89 y = 0.0007x 2 + 0.043x + 3.66 R 2 = 0.91 0 10 20 30 40 50 WDGS level ADG F:G Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep; 2005 Midwest American Society of Animal Science
Traditional WDGS $ Profit, $/ steer 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 WDGS level Buckner et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
Dry DGS Performance 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 y = 0.0006x 2 0.039x + 6.35 R 2 = 0.70 y = 0.0006x 2 + 0.029x + 3.31 R 2 = 0.86 0 10 20 30 40 50 DDGS level ADG F:G Buckner et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep; 2007 Midwest American Society of Animal Science
Dry DGS $ Profit, $/ steer 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 DDGS level Buckner et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
Modified WDGS Performance 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 y = 0.0074x + 6.16 R 2 = 0.77 y = 0.0004x 2 + 0.022x + 3.64 R 2 = 0.87 0 10 20 30 40 50 Modified WDGS level ADG F:G Huls et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
Modified WDGS $ Profit, $/ steer 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 Modified WDGS level Huls et al., 2008 Nebraska Beef Rep. (in press)
Issues Many types of byproducts Evaluated individually in many experiments Combining these (meta analysis) to gain insight into carcass quality is necessary All experiments done with same DOF Therefore, performance influences carcass quality All have been (should be) very economical
UNL Meta Analysis of WDGS Effect on Carcass Characteristics Virgil Bremer, Galen Erickson & Terry Klopfenstein
UNL Studies Used Experiment Year Diet DM % WDGS Hd/Tx Sindt et al. 1990 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40 Larson et al. 1991 0, 5.2, 12.6, 40 40 Ham et al. 1992 0, 40 32 Fanning et al. 1997 0, 30 20 Vander Pol et al. 2002 0, 20, 40 10 Vander Pol et al. 2004 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 48 Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50 Corrigan et al. 2005 0, 15, 27.5, 40 40 Luebbe et al. 2005 0, 15, 30 32
Average Daily Gain ADG (lb) 5 4 3 2 1 0 y = 0.0005x 2 + 0.0279x + 3.4669 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Diet DM % WDGS Predicted Values WDGS Level ADG (lb) 0 3.47 10 3.70 20 3.83 30 3.87 40 3.81 50 3.66 Intercept cov. P = 0.03 L P < 0.01 0 P < 0.01 Q P < 0.01
Feed Conversion F:G (lb/lb) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 y = 0.0003x 2 0.0309x + 6.4367 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Diet DM % WDGS Predicted Values WDGS Level F:G 0 6.44 10 6.16 20 5.95 30 5.81 40 5.74 50 5.73 Intercept cov. P = 0.04 L P < 0.01 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.09
12 th Rib Fat Depth 12 th Rib Fat (in) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 y = 8E 05x 2 + 0.0039x + 0.4912 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Diet DM % WDGS Predicted Values WDGS Level FAT 0 0.49 10 0.52 20 0.54 30 0.54 40 0.52 50 0.49 Intercept cov. P = 0.02 L P < 0.01 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.04
Marbling Score Marbling Score 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 y = 0.0277x 2 + 1.3078x + 517.53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Diet DM % WDGS Predicted Values WDGS Level Marbling 0 518 10 528 20 533 30 532 40 526 50 514 500 = Small 0 Intercept Slope cov. P = 0.08 cov. P = 0.09 L P = 0.05 0 P < 0.01 Q P = 0.05
UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF (Sweet Bran) Effect on Carcass Characteristics Virgil Bremer, Galen Erickson & Terry Klopfenstein
UNL Studies Used Experiment Year Diet DM % Sweet Bran Hd/Tx Richards et al. 1993 0, 25 40 Scott et al. 1995 0, 10, 21, 38 40 Herold et al. 1996 0, 38 40 Scott et al. 1999 0, 32 60 Scott et al. 1999 0, 22 48 Buckner et al. 2005 0, 30 50 Losa et al. 2005 0, 30 72
Dry Matter Intake DMI lb/d 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 y = 0.0552x + 21.774 0 10 20 30 40 50 Predicted Values WCGF Level DMI (lb) 0 21.77 10 22.33 20 22.88 30 23.43 40 23.98 % Sweet Bran (DM basis) Linear P < 0.01 Quadratic P = 0.35
Average Daily Gain 5 ADG, lb 4 3 2 1 y = 0.0126x + 3.6689 Predicted Values WCGF Level ADG (lb) 0 3.67 10 3.80 20 3.92 30 4.05 40 4.17 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 % Sweet Bran (DM basis) Linear P < 0.01 Quadratic P = 0.67
Feed Conversion F:G 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 y = 0.0053x + 5.9566 0 10 20 30 40 50 Predicted Values WCGF Level F:G 0 5.96 10 5.90 20 5.85 30 5.80 40 5.74 % Sweet Bran (DM basis) Linear P = 0.03 Quadratic P = 0.48
12 th Rib Fat Depth Fat Depth, in 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 y = 0.0016x + 0.4557 0 10 20 30 40 50 Predicted Values WCGF Level FAT 0 0.46 10 0.47 20 0.49 30 0.50 40 0.52 % Sweet Bran (DM basis) Linear P < 0.01 Quadratic P = 0.87
Marbling Score Marbling Score 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 y = 0.4917x + 491.65 0 10 20 30 40 50 Predicted Values WCGF Level Marbling 0 492 10 497 20 501 30 506 40 511 % Sweet Bran (DM basis) Linear P < 0.01 Quadratic P = 0.78
Sweet Bran and quality grade 120 100 110 106 104 101 97 97 99 99 93 94 Control WCGF 80 60 40 20 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Over 2.3 million hd over 5 yrs not fed Sweet Bran Over 1.4 million hd over 5 yrs fed Sweet Bran in 2002
UNL Meta Analysis of WCGF (Traditional) Effect on Carcass Characteristics Virgil Bremer, Galen Erickson & Terry Klopfenstein
DMI, lb/d 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 % WCGF A (DM basis) Linear P = 0.38 Quadratic P = 0.48
Average Daily Gain ADG, lb/d 5 4 3 2 1 y = 0.0034x + 3.4355 Predicted Values WCGF Level ADG (lb) 0 3.44 10 3.47 20 3.50 30 3.54 40 3.57 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 % WCGF A (DM basis) Linear P = 0.10 Quadratic P = 0.90
F:G 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 % WCGF A (DM basis) Linear P = 0.59 Quadratic P = 0.60
Fat Depth, in. 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 % WCGF A (DM basis) Linear P = 0.46 Quadratic P = 0.46
Marbling Score Marbling Score 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 y = 0.2734x + 503.61 0 10 20 30 40 50 Predicted Values WCGF Level Marbling 0 504 10 501 20 498 30 495 40 493 % WCGF A (DM basis) Linear P = 0.09 Quadratic P = 0.60
Dry DGS Performance 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 y = 0.0006x 2 0.039x + 6.35 R 2 = 0.70 y = 0.0006x 2 + 0.029x + 3.31 R 2 = 0.86 0 10 20 30 40 50 DDGS level ADG F:G Buckner et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep; 2007 Midwest American Society of Animal Science
Dry DGS 0 10 20 30 40 Quad HCW 775 798 817 802 792 0.04 Marb. 533 537 559 527 525 0.18 LM 12.4 12.5 12.8 12.6 12.6 0.37 fat 0.56 0.54 0.59 0.55 0.58 0.99 Buckner et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep; 2007 Midwest American Society of Animal Science
Conclusion Intermediate Levels of byproduct (10 40%) DRC & HMC Diets Equal DOF Treatments that improve performance (i.e. better ADG and F:G) Get fat quicker More marbling
PUFA and Trans Fat with 0, 15, 30% WDGS 7 6 5 4 3 2 4.9 c 5.91 b 6.23 a 0% WDGS 15% WDGS 30 % WDGS 3.07 c 3.83 b 5.13 a 1 0 PUFA TRANS FAT abc Mean values within a response variable and followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P > 0.05).
Marbling and Fat % with 0, 15, 30% WDGS % Fat 10.0 9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 y = 0.014x + 0.261 R 2 = 0.3995 y = 0.0114x + 1.3318 R 2 = 0.332 y = 0.0102x + 1.4181 R 2 = 0.2121 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 USDA Marbling Score Trt 0 Trt 15 Trt 30
Why the confusion (rumors)? Many types of byproducts Evaluated individually in many experiments Byproducts are not all equal, yet all done together Interaction with grain processing Feeding very large amounts (> 40% of DM), then may be a challenge more information needed Research on meat characteristics needed
Beef Extension Page http://beef.unl.edu Beef Reports
CONTACT: Galen Erickson; PH: 402 472 6402; gerickson4@unl.edu Acknowledge: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research / NPPD Abengoa Bioenergy Nebraska Corn Board Cargill Wet Milling UNL Foundation GARD Dakota Gold Research Chief Ethanol Nebraska Beef Council