1 / 44

Ethanol Co-Product Storage and Utilization In Grazing Systems

Distillers Grains Use in Dairy Cattle Operations and Effect on production and Milk Characterics : What Does the Research Say?. Ethanol Co-Product Storage and Utilization In Grazing Systems UNL Ag Research and Development Center Mead, NE June 3, 2009. US Cow Population Milk/cow 1924-2007.

aroby
Download Presentation

Ethanol Co-Product Storage and Utilization In Grazing Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Distillers Grains Use in Dairy Cattle Operations and Effect on production and Milk Characterics: What Does the Research Say? Ethanol Co-Product Storage and Utilization In Grazing Systems UNL Ag Research and Development Center Mead, NE June 3, 2009

  2. US Cow Population Milk/cow 1924-2007

  3. Issues: • Corn Milling co-products • - Low levels of LYS • - High levels of 18:2 • - Low levels of starch

  4. Research Objectives Understand Nutrient Utilization Understand Feed Chemical Composition Understand Effects of Production

  5. Chemical Composition

  6. Mobile Bag Technique: RUP and dRUP (Kononoff et al., 2007) Protein

  7. Ruminal and Intestinal Protein Digestibility 1Kelzer et al., 2007

  8. AA Conc. in the RUP [ ] (% CP) 1Kelzer et al., 2007

  9. NDF and rumen fermentation Tedeschi et al. (2008)

  10. Rumen Biohydrogenation Bamguard et al., 2000

  11. Lipid Fractions of Co-products 1Kelzer et al., 2007

  12. Milk Production and Co-Products

  13. WCGF and 305 d Milk Yield Objective: To determine the effects of feeding WCGF during lactation(and the dry period). Experimental Units: 36 Primiparous Holstein Cows 40 Multiparous Holstein Cows

  14. Diets

  15. ○ WCGF-L ● WCGF-DL ▲ Control

  16. Effect of diet on milk production over 43 weeks of lactation.

  17. Effect of diet on test day milk composition over 43 weeks of lactation.

  18. Body condition score means for the respective treatments over the entire lactation were 3.33, 3.36, 3.34 (SE 0.04, P = 0.84).

  19. The Effect of Feeding Increasing Levels of Dried Distillers Grains Plus Solubles to Dairy Cows • 4 Dietary Treatments • Control, no Dried Distillers Grains • 10% diet DM • 20% diet DM • 30% diet DM • Four 28d periods • 20 cows • 76 + 24 DIM Janicek et al., 2008

  20. Experimental Diets

  21. Chemical Composition Janicek et al., 2008

  22. Results - DMI pds/d Linear effect; P = 0.03

  23. Results – Milk Production Linear effect; P= 0.08 Janicek et al., 2008

  24. Fat and Protein Yield, kg/d Janicek et al., 2008

  25. DDGS and milk CLA Janicek et al., 2008

  26. Dairy Rations that Maximize the Inclusion of Corn Milling Co-Products Objective: To determine nutritional strategies that support maximal inclusion of corn milling co-products in dairy rations. Experimental Design: 5X5 Latin square 40 cows fed 5 diets during 4 periods Experimental Measures: Daily Feed Intake Milk Production Nutrient Digestibility

  27. Modified WDGS DM = 45.6 NDF = 30.8 CP = 30.2 Fat = 13.5 Wet Corn Gluten Feed DM = 55.9 NDF = 36.9 CP = 23.1 Fat = 5.1

  28. Dry Matter Intake (pds/d) Observed Difference: P < 0.05 Gehman and Kononoff (2007)

  29. Milk Production (pds/d) Observed Difference: P < 0.05 Gehman and Kononoff (2007)

  30. Digestibility, % Observed Difference: P < 0.05 Gehman and Kononoff (2007)

  31. Purine Metabolism Dietary Nucleic Acids Degraded Degraded Microbial Nucleic Acids PD Liver Duodenum Rumen Excreted in urine Crawford et al., 2005

  32. Purine Derivatives, mmol/d Observed Difference: P = 0.04 Gehman and Kononoff (2007)

  33. All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain

  34. New Dry Milling Process Grind, Wet, Cook, Yeasts and Enzymes

  35. Control and Treatment Diets

  36. Results Milk production and composition 1Feed Conversion = 3.5% FCM/DMI

  37. Dairy rations and co-products • Co-products may be included and rumen biohydrogenation may not affect milk fat yield • Co-products are low in LYS but high levels may not affect milk protein • Energy contribution from starch may be replaced with fat, fermentable fiber

  38. CHO Composition and Bacterial Growth 1aNDF = available NDF = NDF – (lignin X 2.4) 2 NFC= 100-CP-(NDF-NDIN)-Ash-EE, STA =Starch Hristov and Ropp (2003)

  39. CPM vs Observed Microbial Protein Flow (g/d) CPM Difference: 2233g/d – 1985 g/d = 248g/d Observed Difference (not statistically different): 2125 g/d – 2006 g/d = 119 g/d Hristov and Ropp (2003)

  40. Acknowledgments Nebraska Corn Board Cargill Corn Milling Poet Nutrition ADM UNL Dairy Research Unit Undergraduate Students Anna Geis Christina Heine Kristina Hubbard UNL Dairy Nutrition Graduate Students Amanda Gehman (PhD candidate) Brandy Janicek (MS) Jolene Kelzner (MS) Kim Mahacheck (MAg candidate) Ezequias Lopez (MS Candidate) Hugo Rameriz (MS Candidate)

  41. Thank-you

More Related