1 / 42

Energy Value of Feeding Distillers in a Forage Diet and Feeding Fresh versus Stored Distillers

Energy Value of Feeding Distillers in a Forage Diet and Feeding Fresh versus Stored Distillers. Terry Klopfenstein, B.L. Nuttelman, Crystal Buckner Animal Science University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Reasons For Feeding DG With Forage. Crude Protein Undegradable Protein Energy P

rhy
Download Presentation

Energy Value of Feeding Distillers in a Forage Diet and Feeding Fresh versus Stored Distillers

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. Energy Value of Feeding Distillers in a Forage Diet and Feeding Fresh versus Stored Distillers Terry Klopfenstein, B.L. Nuttelman, Crystal Buckner Animal Science University of Nebraska-Lincoln

  2. Reasons For Feeding DGWith Forage Crude Protein Undegradable Protein Energy P No Negative Assoc. Effects? “One Size Fits All”?

  3. Paradigm Shifts • Use Protein for Energy • Use Excess UIP for DIP

  4. Escape Protein Values Source % Protein escape SBM 30 DWG 60-70% DDG 60-70% DS 30%

  5. DDG Composition aSolubles level calculated using % NDF of solubles (2.3%) and 0% solubles DDG

  6. DDG Protein Digestion, % of Entering

  7. Fat Intake, kg/d

  8. Gain:Feed

  9. DRC or DDG Effects on DMI, NDF Rates and pH Daily Item Cont. DRC DDG DMIh, % BWa 1.88 1.69 1.69 DMIt, % BWa 1.88 2.10 2.09 NDF, %/hab 4.34 3.43 4.09 pHab 6.30 6.22 6.12 aCont. vs Supplements, P< .05. bDDG vs DRC.

  10. DDG energy (forage diet) LOW HIGH SEM ADG, lb/d corn .81 1.57 .05 DDG .99 1.89 .05 F:G corn 15.9 9.8 .5 DDG 12.8 8.0 .5 DDG ~18 - 30% of corn Loy et al., 2003 Nebraska Beef Report (in press)

  11. Introduction • Feedlot diets 100 – 140% energy value of corn • DDGS contains 118 to 130% energy value of corn in forage diets (Loy et al., 2003)

  12. Objective Determine the energy value of WDGS in comparison to DRC in high forage diets

  13. Materials and MethodsPen Study Treatments DRC WDGS NRC-predicted energy and MP requirements Isocaloric Isonitrogenous Targeted 2.25 lb ADG

  14. Materials and MethodsPen Study Diet Formulation 35% Sorghum Silage 25% WDGS or 33.6 % DRC WDGS 127% energy value of DRC Grass hay adjusted for WDGS and DRC

  15. Materials and MethodsPen Study 160 crossbred steers (286 ± 18 kg) 67 d growing trial 10 pens (16 steers/pen)

  16. Results Performance DRC WDGS Initial BW, lb 629 629 DMI, lb/d 18 17.6 ADG, lb 2.71 2.88 G:F .15 .16

  17. ResultsEnergy Calculation • NRC (1996) model • TDN values • DRC – 83% • Grass Hay – 52% • SS – 65% • DRC Net Energy adjusters 100% • WDGS 98.96% to account for increased gain

  18. ResultsEnergy Calculation • WDGS 108% TDN • 130% Estimated energy value of DRC • TDN values (108/83)

  19. 2009 Individual Barn Compare energy value of WDGS to DRC at three different levels in high forage diets.

  20. Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn 60 cross bred steers (509 ± 28 lb) Individually fed 85 d Matched pair feeding

  21. 108% TDN value for WDGS WDGS 15, 25, or 35% inclusion level DRC 22, 41, and 60% inclusion level Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn

  22. 30% Sorghum silage Decreased Grass hay with increasing levels of WDGS or DRC Soypass and urea Materials and MethodsIndividual Barn

  23. Energy Value of WDGS Low Medium High Corn WDGS Corn WDGS Corn WDGS DMI 15.6 15.6 16.1 16.1 15.7 15.7 ADG 1.84 1.98 2.32 2.56 2.47 2.70 G:F .119 .128 .144 .159 .158 .172

  24. Low WDGS (15% ) 146% Feeding Value MED WDGS (25%) 149% Feeding Value HIGH WDGS (35%) 142% Feeding Value ResultsIndividual Barn

  25. Materials and Methods 240 yearling steers (BW = 229 ± 16 kg) Backgrounding Late fall to April 21 (144 d) Supplemented 5 lb/hd/d WCGF Smooth brome grazing April 22 to May 11 (21 d)

  26. Materials and Methods Summer grazing May 12 to September 23 (135 d) Treatment groups 1. No supplementation (CON) 2. MDGS supplementation at 0.6% BW (SUPP)

  27. Results a,bMeans with different superscripts differ (P < 0.001).

  28. ADGCON = 0.62 kg/d Meta-analysis ADGSUPP = 1.00 kg/d Griffin et al., 2009

  29. Wet vs Dry DGS • Individually fed • 13, 25, 40% of diet • Alfalfa + forage sorghum silage

  30. Wet vs Dry DGS1 DDGS2 WDGS2 DMI, lb 17.0 15.4 ADG, lb 2.69 2.48 F:G 0.158 0.161 (+5%)3 1Nuttelman. 235% of diet by regression. 3Value vs DDGS.

  31. Response to UIP or Fat in DDGS • Corn gluten meal, UIP • Tallow, EE • Equivalent levels to DDGS

  32. DGS vs Corn • 130% ± energy of corn • 117% TDN @ corn = 90% • 108% TDN @ corn = 83% • Fat • UIP

  33. Feeding Fresh vs Wet EnsiledWDGS or Solubles and Residues

  34. Solubles vs WDGS1 Solubles2 WDGS2 DMI, lb 16.2 15.6 ADG, lb 1.04 1.25 F:G 15.5 12.5 1Wilken. 222.5% byproduct, 77.5% cornstalks.

  35. Solubles vs WDGS1 Solubles2 WDGS2 DMI, lb 11.0 9.87 ADG, lb 1.10 .88 F:G 9.70 11.2 1Peterson. 235% byproduct stored with 65% straw.

  36. Ensiling WDGS with Cornstalks1 Fresh2 Ensiled2 DMI, lb 12.2 14.1 ADG, lb 1.02 1.43 F:G 11.95 9.83 1Wilken. 230% WDGS, 70% cornstalks.

  37. Effect of Ensiling WDGS and Straw1 Fresh2 Ensiled2,3 DMI, lb 9.50 9.37 ADG, lb 1.13 .97 F:G 8.64 10.6 1Peterson. 240% WDGS, 60% straw, pair fed. 3Different source of WDGS.

  38. Bagging Effects1 Fresh Bagged Bagged+1 DMI, lb 9.6 9.6 9.6 ADG, lb 0.89a 1.07b 1.11b G:F 0.092b 0.110b 0.115b F:G 13.3a 9.76b 8.99b 137.5% WDGS, 62.5% straw (DM). 2Plus inoculum. a,bP<0.05.

More Related