Corn Replacement: Coproducts
& Ag Residues
Galen Erickson, Terry Klopfenstein,
& many students
Byproducts
• WDGS, modified (45% DM)
• WDGS, traditional (35% DM)
• DDGS, (90% DM)
• Syrup, distillers solubles, CCDS
• WCGF (45% DM)
• WCGF-Sweet Bran (60% DM)
• DCGF
• Steep
• Synergy
• “new” distillers grains
Meta-Analysis of Using
Distillers Grains
Virgil Bremer, Terry Klopfenstein &
Galen Erickson
WDGS Meta- Analysis
• 20 feedlot trials at UNL
• 3,365 steers, 350 pens
• WDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC
• Levels of WDGS up to 50% DM.
Average Daily Gain
5.5
Average Daily Gain, lbs./day
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
0
10
20
30
Diet DM % WDGS
40
50
WDGS Feed Efficiency
22
g of Gain/100 g Feed
20
18
16
14
y = -0.001x2 + 0.0868x + 15.458
12
10
Feeding Value, % of Corn
150
0
10
143
136
130
20
Diet DM % WDGS
30
40
WDGS 12th Rib Fat
0.8
0.7
Fat Thickness, in.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
y = -5E-05x2 + 0.0039x + 0.4834
0.1
0.0
0.48
0
0.52
10
0.54
20
Diet DM % WDGS
0.55
0.55
30
40
WDGS Marbling Score
700
Marbling Score, 500 = Small 0
650
600
550
500
450
400
528
0
y = -0.0263x2 + 0.9719x + 528.04
y = -0.0263x2 + 0.9719x + 528.04
535
537
534
525
10
20
Diet DM % WDGS
30
40
MDGS Meta- Analysis
• 4 feedlot trials at UNL
• 680 steers, 85 pens
• MDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC
• Levels of WDGS up to 50% DM.
DDGS Meta- Analysis
• 4 feedlot trials at UNL
• 581 steers, 66 pens
• DDGS replaced blends of DRC and HMC
• Levels of WDGS up to 40% DM.
Feed Efficiency
0.170
DDGS (90% DM)
MDGS (46% DM)
WDGS (32% DM)
0.160
0.150
DGS Feeding Value
0.140
0
10
20
30
40
(% of DRC & HMC Blend)
Diet DM % DGS
Diet DM % DGS
10 20 30 40
WDGS 148 145 137 131
MDGS 128 124 121 117
DDGS 107 110 111 112
Dry, Modified, Wet
WDGS
MDGS
DDGS
SEM
P-value
Performance1
DMI, lb/d
ADG, lb
F:G
24.8a 26.4b 27.1b
4.11 4.17 4.05
6.06a 6.33b 6.67c
0.07
< 0.01
0.3
0.30
<0.01
Carcass Characteristics2
HCW, lb
Marbling Score
12th rib fat, in
LM area, in2
882
610
0.63
13.3
887
599
0.64
13.2
877
602
0.60
13.4
6
0.52
9
0.69
0.1
0.15
0.15
0.50
a,b,c Means
with different superscripts differ (P - value < 0.05).
DMI - Dry matter intake; ADG - Average daily gain; G:F - gain per lb of feed.
2 HCW - Hot carcass wt.; Marbling Score: 400 - slight, 500 - small, 600 - Modest, 700 - Moderate, 800 - Slightly Abundant.
1
Nuttelman et al., 2011 Beef Report
Spring 2010
DDGS: $100/ ton
MDGS: $46/ ton
WDGS: $34/ ton
$3.30/bu corn
50 miles hauling
Effect of Drying Costs on DGS
DDGS: $125/ ton
MDGS: $54/ ton
WDGS: $34/ ton
$3.30/bu corn
50 miles hauling
Current Prices
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Poly. (DDGS)
Poly.
(WDGS)
0
10
DDGS: $175/ ton
MDGS: $90/ ton
WDGS: $75/ ton
20
30
40
50
$6.25/bu corn
60 miles hauling
60
Do we have to feed
grain?
4 WCGF:WDGS combination experiments (Loza, Loza, Buckner, Benton)
2 experiments with >60% WDGS (Wilken, Rich)
Feeding straight WCGF or Sweet Bran
High Levels of Wet Corn Gluten Feed (ADM)
Item
DRC
Control
17.5%
WCGF
35.0%
WCGF
ADG
DMI
Feed/gain
3.45
22.81
6.59
3.58
23.58
6.56
3.74
23.83
6.36
52.5%
WCGF
3.59
23.71
6.61
70.0%
WCGF
3.56
22.71
6.37
87.5%
WCGF
3.39
22.53
6.64
Sweet Bran/WDGS combination
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
WDGS
WCGF
0
25
50
75
BP (50:50 Blend)
Loza et al., 2003
Sweet Bran/WDGS combination
5
ADG
4.63
4.56
4.5
3.99
3.9
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
25
50
BP
75
Loza et al., 2003
Sweet Bran/WDGS combination
Feed Conversion
7
6.1
6
5.99
5.71
5.68
25
50
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
BP (%DM)
75
Q = <0.05
L = 0.32
Loza et al., 2003
ADM Synergy concept
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
BP (% DM)
WCGF
MDGS
0
45
60
Benton et al., 2009
ADM Synergy concept
Feedlot Performance
MDGS (%DM):
30
30
30
WCGF (%DM):
0
15
30
Lin
Quad
DMI, lb/d
22.3
22.5
22.0
0.15
0.04
ADG, lb
4.03
4.05
3.86
<0.01
<0.01
F:G
5.52
5.54
5.70
<0.01
0.13
P-Value
Benton et al., 2009
ADM Synergy concept
Carcass Characteristics
MDGS (%DM):
30
30
30
WCGF (%DM):
0
15
30
Lin
Quad
HCW, lb
837
839
818
<0.01
<0.01
LM area, in2
14.1
14.0
14.2
0.81
0.35
12th rib fat, in
0.56
0.58
0.53
0.10
0.07
Marbling score1
511
512
487
0.03
0.15
≥Choice, %
51.6
53.6
41.6
0.11
0.19
Yield Grade
2.97
3.05
2.79
0.02
0.01
1Marbling
P-Value
score: 400 = Slight, 450 = Slight 50, 500 = Small 0, etc.
Benton et al., 2009
High amounts of combination
TRT:
83% corn
44DG:
-corn
66DG:
-hay
44DG:
44GF
33DG:
33GF
-corn
33DG:
33GF
-hulls
Corn
WDGS
Sweet Bran
Soyhulls
Grass
82.5
-
43.8
43.8
-
65.6
21.9
43.8
43.8
-
21.9
32.8
32.8
-
32.8
32.8
21.9
-
Molasses
Alfalfa
Supplement
5.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
5.0
7.5
5.0
Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.
High amounts of combination
TRT:
DMI
83% corn
26.1
44DG:
-corn
66DG:
-hay
44DG:
44GF
33DG:
33GF
-corn
33DG:
33GF
-hulls
25.2
26.6
24.8
26.1
25.8
ADG
4.03
4.47
4.03
3.97
4.16
3.73
F:G
6.48bc
5.65a
6.61c
6.26b
6.28b
6.93d
PEM, n
0
0
0
5
0
2
F:G P = 0.06 for WDG-hay and soyhulls
Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.
$, steer relative to corn
Higher DGS-$
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
65-$3.50
75-$3.50
85-$3.50
83 corn
44 DG-corn
66 DG-hay
Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.
$, steer relative to corn
Higher DGS-$
120
100
80
65-$5.50
75-$5.50
85-$5.50
60
40
20
0
83 corn
44 DG-corn
66 DG-hay
Wilken et al., 2009 Nebraska Beef Rep.
Higher DGS
TRT:
DMI
83% corn
22.6
40DG
corn
70DG
8straw
77DG
9straw
85DG
10straw
70DG
77DG
25straw 17straw
22.9
20.2
19.1
17.8
18.2
19.6
ADG
3.60
4.33
3.65
3.57
2.88
2.49
3.07
F:G
6.29
5.29
5.52
5.38
6.17
7.30
6.37
DOF, n
Fat depth
183
0.42
183
0.61
183
0.48
183
0.43
225
0.43
225
0.27
225
0.50
Rich et al., 2011 Beef Report
Higher DGS
TRT:
0DG
5straw
83corn
40DG
5straw
40corn
70DG
8straw
17corn
77DG
9straw
9corn
85DG
10straw
70DG
77DG
25straw 17straw
DMI
22.6
22.9
20.2
19.1
17.8
18.2
19.6
ADG
3.60b
4.33a
3.65b
3.57b
2.88d
2.49e
3.07c
F:G
6.29c
5.29a
5.52b
5.38ab
6.17c
7.30d
6.37c
DOF, n
Fat depth
183
0.42
183
0.61
183
0.48
183
0.43
225
0.43
225
0.27
225
0.50
Rich et al., 2011 Beef Report
http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/
bioenergy/2008seminars
http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/
bioenergy/10
http://beef.unl.edu/byproducts.
shtml
Adam Shreck
Replacing corn with
chemically treated forage
in beef finishing diets
Use of chemical treatment to
enhance digestibility
NaOH:
CaOH:
• Anderson and Ralston, 1973
• Garrett et al.,1976
• Hogan and Weston, 1971
• Jared and Donefer, 1970
• Klopfenstein and Koers, 1973
• Rexen and Thomsen, 1976
• Rounds and Klopfenstein,1974
• Saxena et al., 1971
• Waller and Klopfenstein, 1975
• Todorov, 1975
•
•
•
•
Rounds and Klopfenstein,1974
Waller and Klopfenstein, 1975
Waller et al., 1976
Lesoing et al., 1980
Digestibility:
NaOH > CaO
NaOH+ CaO =
↑NaOH
Experiments
• Optimize use of chemical treatments
• Factors:
–
–
–
–
–
–
DM
Chemical
Reaction Length
Ambient Temperature
Forage type
Plant part
Effects on Digestibility
In Vitro
Exp 1.
• 4X3X2 Factorial 4 reps
• Chemical:
–
–
–
–
Control
5% CaO
4% CaO 1% NaOH
3% CaO 2% NaOH
• Residue
– Cobs
– Straw
– Stover
• DM
– 35%
– 50%
IVDMD
60
50
40
30
Cobs
Straw
20
Stalks
10
0
Control
5:00
4:01
3:02
Chemical Treatment CaO:NaOH %
IVDMD Part x Treatment
70
60
Husks
Leaves
Cobs
Straw
Stalks
Stems
50
40
30
20
10
0
CaO: NaOH, %:
0
5:0
4:1
3:2
Ingredient, %
of DM
Con
Cobs
Straw
Stalks
DRC
46
36
36
36
36
36
36
Cobs-treated
—
20
—
—
—
—
—
Straw-treated
—
—
—
20
—
—
—
Stalks-treated
—
—
—
—
—
20
—
Cobs-not treated
3.33
—
20
—
—
—
—
Straw-not treated
3.33
—
—
—
20
—
—
Stalks-not treated
3.33
—
—
—
—
—
20
WDGS
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Supplement
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Table 1. Performance characteristics for Exp 1010.
Corn Cobs
Wheat Straw
Corn Stover
Item
Control Treated Native Treated Native Treated Native
P-Value
SE
F1
T2
FxT3
DMI
25.81
25.36
25.66
25.83
25.29
26.11
25.06
0.32 0.97 0.11 0.12
ADG
3.78abc
3.73bcd
3.74bc
4.01a
3.55cd
3.83ab
3.49d
0.084 0.30 <0.01 0.01
F:G
6.85ab
6.80ab
6.85ab
6.45a
7.14b
6.82ab
7.19b
0.003 0.31 0.01 0.16
1Fixed
effect of forage fraction
2Fixed
effect of chemical treatment
3Forage
fraction x chemical treatment interaction
5Calculated
6Pen
as HCW/common dress (63%)
weight before slaughter
abcdWithin
a row, values lacking common superscripts, differ (P<0.05)
Table 2. Carcass characteristics for Exp 1010.
Corn Cobs
Item
Wheat Straw
Corn Stover
Control Treated Native Treated Native Treated Native
HCW
834bc
828bc
BF
0.53a
REA
829bc
SE
F1
T2
FxT3
811cd
841ab
805d
0.47bc 0.48bc 0.50ab
0.44c
0.53a
0.44c 0.018 0.79 <0.01 0.03
12.96
13.03
13.41
13.49
13.20
13.13
12.72 0.221 0.10
Marbling4
517
507
516
508
484
501
494
9.4 0.12 0.25 0.14
Calc. YG
3.46
3.23
3.20
3.29
3.12
3.45
3.21
0.101 0.39 0.08 0.59
1Fixed
effect of forage fraction
2Fixed
effect of chemical treatment
3Forage
857a
P-Value
fraction x chemical treatment interaction
4500=Small,
abcdWithin
600=Modest
a row, values lacking common superscripts, differ (P<0.05)
15.3 0.28 <0.01 <0.01
0.5
0.10
Assume
• Calcium oxide $230/Ton
– Supplement cost: $298 vs $250/T
• As-fed costs/ ton and DM ( ):
–
–
–
–
–
–
Ncobs: $58 (64.40)
TCobs $37.5 (75.00)
Nstraw: $58 (64.40)
Tstraw: $42.5 (85.00)
Nstalks: $58 (72.50)
Tstalks: $40 (80.00)
50% DM
Corn Price/$ bushel
$3.00
$4.50
$6.00
Control
0.00
0.00
0.00
NCobs
6.91
18.30
29.61
NStalks
-13.32
-6.70
-0.16
NStraw
-10.28
-2.08
6.04
TCobs
TStalks
2.06
-0.05
14.78
13.68
27.42
27.33
TStraw
17.37
35.80
54.16
60.00
50.00
40.00
TCobs
TStalks
TStraw
30.00
20.00
10.00
y = 9.1274x - 27.42
0.00
0.00
-10.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Corn Price $/Bushel
8.00
Future Work
•
•
•
•
•
Treated Stalks w/ MDGS
5% roughage in control
1” vs 3” grind size
Increasing pen surface OM
Response with calf-feds vs
yearlings????????
Potential of Chemically Treated Corn Stover and
Modified Distiller Grains as a Partial
Replacement for Corn Grain in Feedlot Diets
J. Russell, D. Loy and J. Anderson (ISU)
and M. Cecava (ADM)
On-farm biomass pre-treatment
• Stover chopped to reduce particle size and increase surface area.
• Treated with nothing or 5% wt:wt dry powder CaO and water to create Ca(OH)2
• Compressed and stored in plastic Ag bags, anaerobically for 30 days
• Used in cattle feeding trial with 210 steers. Cattle fed 183 or 195 days.
On-Farm Treatment Composition of Diets
Corn
Ration
CRF
Ration
Corn grain
70
35
Corn stover*
5
Modified distillers grains
20
20 “CRF”
40
Supplement
5
5
Ingredient % DM
*Corn Stover consisted of either
1)
baled stover-ground;
2)
ag bag stover, no treatment;
3)
ag bag stover with alkaline treatment.
Cattle fed Grain Diet for entire trial, CRF Ration for entire trial or CRF Diet for 112 days and then
Grain Diet to termination.
ADM AFR 09-20 Cattle Feeding Trial Iowa State University
Cattle Performance Response
30 bushels less corn
versus high grain
control ration
ADG, lb
4.00
3.90
a
a
3.90
3.84
3.80
3.70
3.59
3.60
c
3.56
b
3.50
b
3.39
3.40
c
3.36
b
3.28
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
2.90
Corn
Grower/Finisher
a,b,c
Baled Stover
Grower/Corn
Finisher
Untrt Stover
Grower/Corn
Finisher
Trt Stover Grower/
Corn Finisher
Baled Stover
Grower/Finisher
Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)
ADM AFR 09-20 Cattle Feeding Trial Iowa State University
Untrt Stover
Grower/Finisher
Trt Stover
Grower/Finisher
Feed Conversion
lb of feed:lb of weight gain
6.40
6.24
c
6.20
6.00
5.83
b
b
5.83
5.80
5.60
5.46
a
a
5.47
5.40
a,c
c
5.23
5.20
5.20
5.00
4.80
4.60
Corn
Grower/Finisher
Baled Stover
Grower/Corn
Finisher
a,b,c
Untrt Stover
Grower/Corn
Finisher
Trt Stover Grower/
Corn Finisher
Baled Stover
Grower/Finisher
Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)
ADM AFR 09-20 Cattle Feeding Trial Iowa State University
Untrt Stover
Grower/Finisher
Trt Stover
Grower/Finisher
Carcass characteristics
Item
Corn
CRF
(bale)
Grower
CRF
(bagged NT )
Grower
CRF
(bagged TRT)
Grower
CRF
(bale)
CRF
(bagged NT )
CRF
(bagged TRT )
Grower/Finish
Corn finish
Corn finish
Corn finish
Grow/Finish
Grow/Finish
Grow/Finish
Hot carcass wt,
lb
837a
762b
788b,c
815a,c,d
794c
813a,c
823a,d
Dressing %
61.5a
59.1b
60.1b,c
60.7a,c
60.8a,c
60.6a,c
61.1a,c
Fat cover, in
.53a
.36b
.33b
.39b.c
.36b,c
.39c
.49a
KPH, %
2.33a
1.82b
1.79b
2.05a,b
1.88b,c
1.92b,c
2.15a,c
REA, in2
13.54
13.18
13.18
13.45
13.63
13.93
13.49
Marbling score,
(1000 = C-)
1088a
1006b
1025b
1027b
1008b
1028b
1027b
Yield grade
3.13a
2.44b
2.47b
2.67b
2.44b
2.50b
2.96a
Value
a,b,c,d
$ 1,276.65
$ 1,135.71
$ 1,186.57
Means with unlike superscripts are different (P<.05)
$ 1,225.74
$ 1,186.91
$ 1,215.42
$ 1,231.86
Economics (net return/steer)
Ingredient
Baled Stover, ground
Bagged, not-treated
Bagged, treated
Modified wet DG
Corn
Supplement
DM
0.73
0.68
0.47
0.50
0.88
0.89
Cost/ton as
fed or per bu
$
55
$
59
$
51
$
82
$
6.00
$
400
Practical
application
Grinding
Adding CaO
Adding Water
Weight measures
Storage options
Exothermic properties
Beef Extension Page
http://beef.unl.edu
Beef Reports
2011