2008 Nutritional Value of U.S. DDGS for Swine, …...Nutritional Value of U SNutritional Value of U.S. DDGS in Swine, Poultry, and Aquaculture Diets Dr. Jerry Shurson Professor Department

Nutritional Value of U SNutritional Value of U.S. DDGS in Swine, Poultry,

and Aquaculture Diets

Dr. Jerry ShursonProfessorProfessor

Department of Animal ScienceUniversity of Minnesota

Comparison of Nutrient Composition of High Quality CornComparison of Nutrient Composition of High Quality Corn DDGS to Corn Gluten Feed, Corn Gluten Meal, and Brewer’s Dried Grains (As Fed Basis)

High Quality Corn DDGS

Corn Gluten Feed

Corn Gluten Meal

Brewer’s Dried Grains

Crude Protein, % 27.2 21.5 60.2 26.5, %Crude Fat, % 9.5 3.0 2.9 7.3NDF, % 38.8 33.3 8.7 48.7DE kcal/kg (swine) 3 639 2 990 4 225 2 100DE, kcal/kg (swine) 3,639 2,990 4,225 2,100ME, kcal/kg (swine) 3,378 2,605 3,830 1,960Lys, % 0.74 0.63 1.02 1.08Met % 0 49 0 35 1 43 0 45Met, % 0.49 0.35 1.43 0.45Thr, % 1.01 0.74 2.08 0.95Trp, % 0.21 0.07 0.31 0.26

Ca % 0 05 0 22 0 05 0 32Ca, % 0.05 0.22 0.05 0.32Available P, % 0.71 0.49 0.07 0.19

DDGS Color and Digestibility Varies Among DDGS Sources

High Quality,Highly DigestibleDDGS

Lower Quality,Less DigestibleDDGS DDGSDDGS

Variation in Digestible Amino Acids in 34 Sources of Corn DDGS (%)

Amino Acid

Max Min CV

Lys 0.77 0.33 18.4

Met 0 66 0 40 12 6Met 0.66 0.40 12.6

Thr 0.96 0.68 10.2

Trp 0.21 0.10 15.8

Urriola et al. (2007)

Relationship Between Lightness of Color (L*) and p g ( )Digestible Lysine Content of Corn DDGS

0.80

Dlys = 0.02(L*) - 0.25R2 = 0.480.60

0.70

nten

t, %

Dlys = 0.01(L*) + 0.320.50

0.60

ig. l

ys c

on

y ( )R2 = 0.03

0 30

0.40

Di

0.3030 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Color parameter L*

Use of U.S. Corn DDGS in S i Di tSwine Diets

Nutritional Characteristics of DDGS f S iDDGS for Swine DDGS ME = corn ME DDGS ME = corn ME Amino acid content and digestibility variable Total lysine (0 61-1 06% DM basis) Total lysine (0.61 1.06% DM basis) Standardized true lysine digestibility (44-67%)

High digestible P High digestible P Reduce diet inorganic P supplementation May reduce manure P excretion

Partially replaces some corn, soybean meal, and inorganic phosphate and reduces diet cost

Comparison of Phosphorus Level and Relative Availability of DDGS for SwineRelative Availability of DDGS for Swine(88% dry matter basis)

High Quality DDGS

DDGSNRC (1998)

Corn NRC (1998)

Total P, % 0.78Range

0.73 0.25

0.62-0.87P Availability, % 90

Range77 14

Range88-92

Available P, % 0.70 0.56 0.03

Diet Composition When 18.8% DDGS and Ph t Add d t S i G Di tPhytase are Added to a Swine Grower Diet

Ingredient Corn-SBM-1.5 kg Lysine 18.8% DDGS + Phytase

Corn, kg 798.3 636.3

Soybean meal 44% kg 176 9 159 4Soybean meal 44%, kg 176.9 159.4

DDGS, kg 0.0 188

Dicalcium phosphate, kg 11.6 0.0

Li k 2 9 8Limestone, kg 7.2 9.8

Salt, kg 3.0 3.0

L-lysine HCl, kg 1.5 1.5

VTM premix, kg 1.5 1.5

Phytase, 500 FTU/kg 0.0 0.5

TOTAL, kg 1000.0 1000.0, g

Quick Calculation of Feed Cost S iSavings Thumb rule:

Additions/1000 kg diet

+ 100 kg DDGS x $/kg = $+ 100 kg DDGS x ______ $/kg $______+ 1.5 kg limestone x ______ $/kg = $______TOTAL ADDITIONS (A) $______

S bt ti /1000 k di tSubtractions/1000 kg diet

- 88.5 kg corn x ______ $/kg = $______- 10 kg SBM (44%) x $/kg = $g ( ) ______ $ g $______- 3 kg dical. phos. x ______ $/kg = $______TOTAL SUBTRACTIONS (S) $______

(S A) = Feed cost savings/ton by adding 10% DDGS to the diet(S – A) = Feed cost savings/ton by adding 10% DDGS to the diet

Current U.S. Dietary DDGS Inclusion yRates and Estimated Usage Grower-finisher diets ~85-90% Grower-finisher diets 85-90% 10-40% of the diet

Sow diets ~5-10% Gestation – 10-40% of the diet Lactation - 5-10% of the diet Lactation 5 10% of the diet

Late nursery diets < 5% Added at 5-10% of the diet

Maximum Inclusion Rates of Golden High Quality U.S DDGS in Swine Diets(B d U U i it T i l )(Based Upon University Trials)

Nursery pigs (> 7 kg) Nursery pigs (> 7 kg) Up to 30%

Grow-finish pigs Up to 30%

Gestating sows Up to 50% Up to 50%

Lactating sows Up to 30%

Assumptions: no mycotoxinsp yformulate on a digestible amino acid and available phosphorus basis

Feeding High Quality DDGS to Weaned PigsPigs

Summary of U.S. University R h T i lResearch Trials

7 experiments have been conducted 7 experiments have been conducted Pigs fed diets containing up to 30% DDGS have

resulted in no differences in:resulted in no differences in: ADG ADFI Feed/Gain (feed conversion was improved by adding DDGS in some

studies)studies)

Feeding High Quality DDGS to G Fi i h PiGrower-Finisher Pigs

Summary of Growth Performance Responses from U.S. University Research Trials

17 experiments have been conducted to evaluate adding 0–30% DDGS p gto corn-soybean meal grower-finisher diets

ADG Improved in 1 experiment Improved in 1 experiment Not affected in 10 experiments Reduced in 6 experiments

ADFI ADFI Improved in 1 experiment Not affected in 10 experiments Reduced in 6 experimentsp

Gain:Feed Improved in 4 experiments Not affected in 10 experiments Not affected in 10 experiments Reduced in 3 experiments

Effect of Formulating G-F Diets on a Digestible Amino Acid Basis, with Increasing Levels of DDGS, on Overall Growth Performance

0% DDGS 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS0% DDGS 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS

Initial wt., kg 22.5 22.8 22.5 22.5

Final wt., kg 114 115 114 113

ADG kg/d 0 92 0 92 0 92 0 91ADG, kg/d 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.91

ADFI, kg/da 2.57 2.55 2.49 2.46

F/Ga 2.79 2.76 2.71 2.70

a Linear effect of DDGS levelData from 64 pens, 16 pens/treatment (Xu et al., 2007)

Effects of Feeding Increasing Levels of DDGS on Carcass Composition and Pork pQuality

Adding Increasing Levels of DDGS to G-F Diets Slightly Reduces Carcass Yield

Effect of Dietary DDGS Level on Dressing Percentage

77.9 77.777.1

76.777

78

74

75

76

%

71

72

73

74

70

71

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 %Diet

Xu et al. (2007)Linear effect (P < 0.01)

Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on L t Rib B kf tLast Rib Backfat

1

1.25

0.75 0 % DDGS10% DDGS

0.25

0.5 20% DDGS30% DDGS

0Backfat, inches

Xu et al. (2007)30% DDGS tended to be lower than 0% DDGS (P = 0.09)

Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on % C L% Carcass Lean

55

500 % DDGS10% DDGS20% DDGS30% DDGS

45% Lean

Xu et al. (2007)30% DDGS tended to be higher than 0% DDGS (P = 0.11)

Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on Ultimate Muscle pHUltimate Muscle pH

5

3

40% DDGS10% DDGS

1

220% DDGS30% DDGS

0

1

pH

Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Loin CharacteristicsLevel on Loin Characteristics

Loin firmness was linearly reducedy Due to reduced marbling Within accepted U.S. quality standards

Marbling was linearly reduced Marbling was linearly reduced Due to trend for reduced backfat Within accepted U.S. quality standards

Pi f d th 30% DDGS di t h d l i th t li htl l d Pigs fed the 30% DDGS diets had loins that were slightly less red Within accepted U.S. quality standards

No overall differences in subjective color scorej

No differences in drip loss on day 0, 14, 21, or 28 post-harvest

N diff i li id id ti i l i t 28 d f h lf t No differences in lipid oxidation in loins at 28 days of shelf storage

Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Cook Loss and Off Flavor of Pork LoinsCook Loss and Off Flavor of Pork Loins

1.41.61.8

0 81

1.20% DDGS10% DDGS

0.40.60.8 20% DDGS

30% DDGS

00.2

Cook loss, % Off Flavor

No significant differences among dietary treatments.

Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Eating Characteristics of Pork Loinson Eating Characteristics of Pork Loins

44.5

5

2.53

3.50% DDGS10% DDGS

11.5

2 20% DDGS30% DDGS

00.5

Flavor Juiciness

No significant differences among dietary treatments.

Adding Increasing Levels of DDGS to G-F Diets Linearly Reduces Belly Firmness

Effects of Dietary DDGS Level on Belly Firmness

40

45

25

30

35

0

GR

EE

5

10

15

20DEG

0

5

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 %Diet

Xu et al. (2007)

Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on B ll d B kf t Ch t i tiBelly and Backfat Characteristics

No effect on belly thickness No effect on belly thickness

No differences in belly fat color No differences in belly fat color Japanese color score Minolta L*, a*, b*

No differences in backfat color Japanese color score Japanese color score Minolta a*, b*

Effects of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Belly and Backfat Characteristics

Backfat thickness is unaffected, and may be slightly Backfat thickness is unaffected, and may be slightly reduced, with increasing dietary levels of DDGS

Bellies will be less firm as higher dietary levels of DDGS Bellies will be less firm as higher dietary levels of DDGS are fed

Belly thickness may or may not be affected by increasing Belly thickness may or may not be affected by increasing dietary DDGS levels

N b t d d h lf lif d f t id ti i No concern about reduced shelf life and fat oxidation in loins under typical retail storage conditions for at least 28 days.

Does Feeding DDGS Improve Gut Health of Growing Pigs?

Healthy Ileitis

Effect of Dietary Treatment on Lesion Length (21 d Post-Challenge)

20

25

, cm

NCPC

SE = 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.3

20

25

, cm

NCPC

SE = 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.3

20

25

, cm

NCPC

SE = 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.3

D10 (P = .02)

10

15

on le

ngth

,

D10PC+ARD10+AR

D10 (P = .02)

10

15

on le

ngth

,

D10PC+ARD10+AR10

15

on le

ngth

,

D10PC+ARD10+AR

D10 (P = .02)

0

5Lesi

o

D10 (P = .02)

0

5Lesi

o

0

5Lesi

o

Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*

Section of gastro-intestinal tractJejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*


Section of gastro-intestinal tract

* Effect of disease challenge (P < .01).

Effect of Dietary Treatment on Lesion S it (21 d P t Ch ll )Severity (21 d Post-Challenge)

1.5

1.8

0-4)

NCPC

AR (P 03)

D10 (P = .02)SE = 0.16 0.17 0.08 0.11

1.5

1.8

0-4)

NCPC

AR (P 03)

D10 (P = .02)SE = 0.16 0.17 0.08 0.11

0 6

0.9

1.2

on s

core

(0 D10PC+ARD10+AR

AR (P = .03)

D10 (P = .09)

D10 (P = .10)

0 6

0.9

1.2

on s

core

(0 D10PC+ARD10+AR

AR (P = .03)

D10 (P = .09)

D10 (P = .10)

0.0

0.3

0.6

Lesi

o

0.0

0.3

0.6

Lesi

o

Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*




Effect of Dietary Treatment on Lesion Pre alence (21 d Post Challenge)Prevalence (21 d Post-Challenge)

80

100

s

NCPCD10AR (P = 04)

D10 (P = .02)

SE = 6.3 6.4 3.6 5.0

80

100

s

NCPCD10AR (P = 04)

D10 (P = .02)

SE = 6.3 6.4 3.6 5.0

40

60

% o

f pig

s D10PC+ARD10+AR

AR (P = .04)

D10 (P = .03)40

60

% o

f pig

s D10PC+ARD10+AR

AR (P = .04)

D10 (P = .03)

0

20

Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*0

20

Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*Jejunum* Ileum* Cecum Colon*




F di DDGS t SFeeding DDGS to Sows

Producer Perceptions and Ob tiObservations Perception Perception DDGS is a risky ingredient because of mycotoxin concerns

Has limited DDGS use compared to potentialp p

Observations Increased lactation feed intake Sows are more content Fewer constipation problems Fewer constipation problems

University of Minnesota –Wil t l (2003)Wilson et al. (2003)

Used 93 sows Used 93 sows randomly assigned to 1 of 4 dietary treatment combinations

i d di h h 2 d i sows remained on dietary treatments through 2 reproductive cycles

Each dietary treatment combination consisted of both a gestation and lactation diet

Corn-SBM Gestation and Corn-SBM Lactation Corn-SBM Gestation and 20% DDGS Lactation 50% DDGS Gestation and Corn-SBM Lactation 50% DDGS Gestation and 20% DDGS Lactation

Effect of Feeding a 50% DDGS Diet on Sow W i ht G i D i G t tiWeight Gain During Gestation

40

50

g

a a

20

30

40

ht G

ain,

kg

Cycle 1Cycle 2

x x

0

10

20

Wei

gh

Cycle 2

0Control DDGS

Gestation Dietary Treatment

a,b,x,y Different superscripts indicate significant difference (P < .10).

Effect of Feeding 0 or 50% DDGS Gestation Diets and 0 or 20% DDGS Lactation Diets on Pigs Weaned/Litter

10.012.0

Pigs

a x a y a y a y

2 04.06.08.0

umbe

r of P Cycle 1

Cycle 2

0.02.0

Control

/DDGS

Control

/DDGS

Nu

Control/C

o

Control/D

DDGS/Co

DDGS/D

Dietary treatmentDietary treatmenta,b,x,y Different superscripts indicate significant difference (P < .10).

Effect of Dietary Treatment Combination on Sow Lactation ADFI

45678

ke, k

g/da

y

Cycle 1

a xy b x a y a xy

01234

Feed

Inta

k Cycle 2

0

ol/Contro

l

trol/D

DGS

S/Control

GS/DDGS

F

Control/

Contro

DDGS/

DDG

Dietary Treatmenta,b,x,y Different superscripts indicate significant difference (P < .10).

University of Minnesota –S t l (2007)Song et al. (2007)

To determine the effects of increasing levels To determine the effects of increasing levels of DDGS in lactation diets on:

Sow and litter performance

Energy and nitrogen balance in sows

Milk fat and protein concentrations

Analyzed Nutrient Composition of Experimental Diets

C t l 10% 20% 30% 30%Control 10% DDGS

20% DDGS

30% DDGS

30% DDGS

HPCrude protein % 17 81 18 00 17 33 16 99 20 27Crude protein, % 17.81 18.00 17.33 16.99 20.27ADF, % 8.94 4.37 5.29 6.98 8.48Total calcium, % 0.88 0.88 0.84 0.82 0.76Total phosphorus, % 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.73

Gross energy, Mcal/kg 3.95 4.03 4.10 4.18 4.02Metabolizable energy, Mcal/kg 3.34 3.37 3.51 3.57 3.42gy g

Song et al. (2007)

Genetics and HousingGenetics and Housing

Used 307 mixed parity sows

- Group housed = 147 sows - Individual crates = 160 sows

English Belle, GAP genetics, Winnipeg, MB, Canada Average initial weight of about 222 ± 15 kg

Group housingGroup housing Individual housingIndividual housing

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Sow ADFI in Lactation

8

5

6

7

8

2

3

4

5

kg

0

1

2

Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGSHP

No significant difference (P = 0.10)No significant difference (P = 0.10)

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level S B d W i ht Ch

8

on Sow Body Weight Change

a

5678

ab

ab

1234

kg

ab

b

-2-101


-3

a,ba,b Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05) Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Litter Size at WeaningLitter Size at Weaning

11

789

10

ets

3456

# of

pig

le

012


No significant difference (P = 0.31) No significant difference (P = 0.31)

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Litter Weight Gain

60

40

50

20

30kg

0

10


No significant difference (P = 0 67)No significant difference (P = 0 67)

HP


Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Average Daily Piglet Weight Gain

200

250

300

100

150

00

g

0

50

Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS

10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. 30% DDGS HP (P < 0.1)10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. 30% DDGS HP (P < 0.1)10 20 d 30% DDGS C t l (P 0 1)10 20 d 30% DDGS C t l (P 0 1)

HP

10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. Control (P < 0.1)10, 20, and 30% DDGS vs. Control (P < 0.1)

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yWean to Estrus Interval

6

4

5

6

2

3

4

days

0

1



Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yPre-Weaning Mortality

14

10

12

14

6

8

%

0

2

4

0Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS

HP

No significant difference (P = 0.71) No significant difference (P = 0.71)

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Coefficient of Variation of Individual Pig Weight within Litters

CV D0 d D19CV- D0 and D19

20

10

15

%

0

5

Control 10%D 20%D 30%D 30%DHPControl 10%D 20%D 30%D 30%DHP

D0 D19

No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.85) and Day 19 (P = 0.53)No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.85) and Day 19 (P = 0.53)

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yMetabolizable Energy

100

708090

100

405060

% o

f GE

0102030

0Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS

HP


Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on g yNitrogen Digestibility

100

708090

100

40506070

%

102030

0Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS HP


Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Nitrogen Content of Sow Milk

Nitrogen in milk - D0 and D19Nitrogen in milk D0 and D19

2

2.5

1

1.5

%

0

0.5

Control 10% DDGS 20% DDGS 30% DDGS 30% DDGS HP

D0 D19

No significant difference at Day 0 (P = 0.73) and Day 19 (P=0.41)No significant difference at Day 0 (P = 0.73) and Day 19 (P=0.41)

Effect of Increasing Dietary DDGS Level on Fat Concentration in Sow Milk

Fat in milk - D0 and D19Fat in milk D0 and D19

789

34567

%

012


D0 D19

No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.99) and Day 19 (P = 0.59)No significant difference on Day 0 (P = 0.99) and Day 19 (P = 0.59)

C l iConclusion Inclusion of up to 30% DDGS in sow lactation p

diets did not affect: Sow and litter performance

Digestible and metabolizable energy

Nitrogen retention and digestibility Nitrogen retention and digestibility

Milk nitrogen and fat concentration

U f C DDGS i P lt Di tUse of Corn DDGS in Poultry Diets

Benefits and Limitations for Poultryy

Benefits Limitations

Good energy and amino acid source when limited to < 15% f th di t

Energy value ~ 84% of corn Low protein quality

< 15% of the diet Source of highly available P

Reduce manure PMay improve egg yolk and

add other supplements high in lys, arg, trp

Sources high in sodium may increase litter moisture

May improve egg yolk and skin color (xanthophyll)

Source of “unidentified growth factors”?

may increase litter moisture if adjustments to dietary salt levels are not made

growth factors ? “Golden” DDGS gives best

performance Highly palatableg y p

Recommended Inclusion Rates of DDGS for Poultry Broilers Broilers

10% inclusion rates Without energy adjustmentsgy j

> 10% With adjustments for lys, met, thr, trp, and energy

Chi k E L Chicken Egg Layers 10% inclusion rate > 10% > 10%

With adjustments for lys, met, thr, trp, and energy

Use of Corn DDGS in Aquaculture Di tUse of Corn DDGS in Aquaculture Diets

qDiets

Current Recommendations for Maximum Dietary Inclusion Rates of DDGS for yVarious Species of Fish

Species % DDGS CommentsCatfish Up to 30%

Trout Up to 15% Without synthetic lys and met supplementation

Trout Up to 22.5% With synthetic lys and met supplementation

Salmon Up to 10%

Freshwater Prawns

Up to 40% Can replace some or all of the fish meal in the diet

Shrimp Up to 10% No studies are available but based upon research results with freshwater prawns, a minimum of 10% DDGS in shrimp should be acceptable.

Tilapia Up to 35% Without synthetic lys and supplementation in high protein diets (40% CP)(40% CP)

Tilapia Up to 82% With synthetic lys and trp supplementation in low protein diets (28% CP)

University of Minnesota DDGS Web SiteDDGS Web Site

www.ddgs.umn.eduWe have developed a DDGS web site featuring:* nutrient profiles and photos of DDGS samples

* research summaries

- swine, poultry, dairy, & beefp y y

- DDGS quality

* presentations given* links to other DDGS related web sites* international audiences

Documents

2008 Nutritional Value of U.S. DDGS for Swine, …...Nutritional Value of U SNutritional Value of U.S. DDGS in Swine, Poultry, and Aquaculture Diets Dr. Jerry Shurson Professor Department