Corn Ethanol Co-Products For Finishing Beef Cattle

1. Corn Ethanol Co-Products For Finishing Beef Cattle Darrell R. Mark, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Galen Erickson, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Crystal Buckner, University of Nebraska–Lincoln

2. Types of Corn Co-Products • Corn gluten feed: wet mill • Corn bran + steep • Can be wet or dry • Moderate crude protein, CP = 16-23% • 80% of CP is DIP (ruminally degradable) • Low fat, moderate fiber, TDN = 80 • 101-115% of energy value of dry-rolled corn • Product variation is significant within and across plants due to amount of steep added back to the corn bran

3. Types of Corn Co-Products • Distillers Grains + Solubles: dry mill • Distillers Grains (65%) & Solubles (35%) (DM basis) • May be wet or dried • Higher crude protein, CP = 30% • 65% UIP (undegraded, “bypass”, protein) • High fat (11%), TDN = 70-110 • Concentrates nutrients 3-fold from corn • 0.8% P, 0.35-1.0% Sulfur (variable)

4. Types of Corn Co-Products • Condensed distillers soluables: dry mill • Also known as “syrup” • 35% dry matter but in liquid form • Higher crude protein, CP = 26% • High fat, low fiber, TDN = 110-115 • Modified DGS are available • (35-65% DM) • Hybrid wet & dry plant combining corn bran and distillers solubles  bran cake • Example: Dakota Bran Cake

5. Nutrient Composition of Selected Corn Milling Co-Products

6. General Corn Co-Products Cattle Finishing Comments • High energy & protein • Helps control acidosis (no starch in co-products) • May be able to feed less (or lower quality) roughage • Inclusion rate may depend on corn processing method • High variation in feeding value/composition of co-products presents challenge for feeding • WDGS results in better performance than DDGS

7. Energy Value of WDGS vs DDGS Fed at 40% of Diet DM

8. Energy Content of WDGS y = -0.96x + 167 R2 = 0.32

9. Feed Efficiency & ADG Response To WDG Inclusion Rate Source: Vander Pol et al., 2006 Nebraska Beef Rep. and 2005 Midwest ASAS

10. Feed Efficiency & ADG Response To DDG Inclusion Rate Source: Buckner et al., 2007 Nebraska Beef Rep.

11. Economic Issues Associated With Feeding Ethanol Co-Products • Performance improvements from feeding WDGS & WCGF at 30-40% dietary inclusion hedges against corn price increases • Cattle biological response to WDGS is quadratic and response to WCGF is linear • Feeding wet co-products leads to: • Increased trucking cost to feedyard • Increased feeding/handling cost within feedyard • Fewer days on feed (less yardage/interest cost)

12. Inputs Dietary ingredients (DM, inclusion, price) Cattle performance (DMI, feed conversion) Trucking distance, size, cost Yardage, processing/health, interest rate Outputs ADG & DOF Total Costs Yardage Ration Feeding expense Co-product hauling Net Return Return to co-product feeding Cattle Feeding Budget Model With WDGS & WCGF

13. Example • Feeder cattle in-weight 740 lbs • Fed cattle out-weight 1300 lbs • Days on feed 153 days • DMI 24 lbs • Feed:Gain 6.5 lbs/lb • Yardage cost $0.35/hd/day • Trucking $3.00/loaded m • Corn price $2.76/bu • WDGS price 95% of corn price (DM basis)

14. Marginal Return to WDGS Feeding with Varying Corn Prices -$91.67 -$143.19 -$195.41 -$247.62 Distance at 60 miles

15. Marginal Return to WDGS Feeding with Varying Distances to Plant -$143.19 Corn at $3.50/bu

16. Marginal Return to WDGS Feeding with Varying WDGS Prices Relative to Corn -$143.19 Corn at $3.50/bu Distance at 60 miles

17. Marginal Return to WCGF Feeding with Varying Corn Prices -$91.67 -$143.19 -$195.41 -$247.62 Distance at 60 miles

18. Budget Model Summary • Model accounts for growth biology and changing prices • At 30% inclusion rate of WDGS, marginal return most impacted by corn price • Distance from plant and hauling cost not as important • Can evaluate the marginal benefit to multiple co-products

19. To Feed More Co-Product • More ethanol production  need to feed more co-products • More than 40% WDGS may add too much fat and sulfur to the diet • Possibility: Feed combinations of WDGS & WCGF

20. WCGF & WDGS Combination Feeding Trial Source: Buckner et al., 2006

21. WCGF & WDGS Combination Feeding Trial P< 0.05 Source: Buckner et al., 2006

22. Challenges • DGS is most available in late summer • Seasonally cheapest then too • Seasonally fewest cattle on feed then too • Storing wet DGS product • Material exposed to air spoils in 7-14 days depending on temperature • Has low pH and does not ensile but will keep in air-tight storage for long periods • Spoilage loss stored in silage bags (Walker et al) • 20% loss opened and fed day 78-112 post-sealing • 28% loss opened and fed day 190-257 post sealing

23. Seasonal Low in Cattle on Feed… Cattle on Feed, All States, 1000+ Head Feedyards Thousand Head 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 2005 8,000 2006 7,000 5 Yr Ave 6,000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source: USDA Month

24. When WDGS Price Is Lowest Seasonal Index of Dried Distillers Grains, Nebraska, 2003-2005 Price Index (% of Annual Avg) 160.00 Seasonal Price Index Seasonal Price Index + 1 Std Dev 140.00 Seasonal Price Index - 1 Std Dev 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 Oct Apr Jan Mar Feb Jun Sep Nov Dec May Aug July Source: AMS & University of Nebraska-Lincoln Month

25. Storing WDGS • Storing wet DGS product • Often delivered in truck load lots • Can store wet DGS in bunker, silage bag or in pile covered with plastic to protect from air • Can mix with tub-ground forage and stored in bunker or bag • Have to have the “mix” right…

26. Minimum Levels of Roughage To Mix in WDGS For Storage Bagginga Bunker Grass hay 15% 30-40 Wheat straw 12.5 25-32 Alfalfa hay 22.5 45-55? DDGS 50 --- ADMCGF 60 --- a300 PSI. Source: Erickson & Klopfenstein

27. Resources • http://beef.unl.edu • www.iowabeefcenter.org • http://www.ddgs.umn.edu/