Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:08:54.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing protein availability of different bioethanol coproducts in dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2012

A. Azarfar ,
A. Jonker  and
P. Yu
A. Azarfar
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, College of Agriculture and Bio-resources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
A. Jonker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, College of Agriculture and Bio-resources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
P. Yu
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, College of Agriculture and Bio-resources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Bioethanol production has led to the production of considerable quantities of different coproducts. Variation in nutrient profiles as well as nutrient availability among these coproducts may lead to an imbalance in the formulation of diets. The objectives of this study were to fractionate protein and carbohydrates by an in situ approach, to determine ruminal availability of nutrients for microbial protein synthesis and to determine protein availability to dairy cattle for three types of dried distiller's grains with solubles (DDGS; 100% wheat DDGS (WDDGS); DDGS blend1 (BDDGS1, corn to wheat ratio 30 : 70); DDGS blend2 (BDDGS2, corn to wheat ratio 50 : 50)) and for different batches within DDGS type using the 2010 DVE/OEB protein evaluation system. The results indicated that all DDGS types are quantitatively good sources of true protein digested and absorbed in the small intestine (DVE values; 177, 184 and 170 g/kg dry matter (DM) for WDDGS, BDDGS1 and BDDGS2, respectively). Rumen degraded protein balances (OEB) values were 159, 82, 65 g/kg DM in WDDGS, BDDGS1 and BDDGS2, respectively. Despite the differences in ruminal availability of nutrients among the different batches of DDGS, the DVE values only differed between the batches of BDDGS1 (194 v. 176 g/kg DM). In conclusion, when DDGS is included in the rations of dairy cattle, variation in its protein value due to factors such as DDGS batch should be taken into consideration.

Keywords

bioethanol coproductsDVE/OEB 2010 systemprotein evaluationdegradation characteristics of protein
Type
Nutrition
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 2013 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural and Food Research Council 1992. Nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: protein. AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients. Report no. 9. Nutrition Abstract Review 62, 787–835.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 1990. Official methods of analysis, 15th edition. AOAC, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Agricultural Research Council 1984. The nutrient requirements of ruminant livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, UK.Google Scholar
Azarfar, A, Jonker, A, Hettiarachchi-Gamage, IK, Yu, P 2011. Nutrient profile and availability of co-products from bioethanol processing. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 96, 450–458.Google Scholar
Azarfar, A, Williams, BA, Boer, H, Tamminga, S 2007. In vitro gas production profile and the formation of end products from non-washable, insoluble washable and soluble washable fractions in some concentrate ingredients. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87, 1345–1375.Google Scholar
Belyea, RL, Rausch, KD, Tumbleson, ME 2004. Composition of corn and distillers dried grains with solubles from dry grind ethanol processing. Bioresource Technology 94, 293–298.Google Scholar
Belyea, RL, Eckhoff, S, Wallig, M, Tumbleson, ME 1998. Variability in the nutritional quality of distillers solubles. Bioresource Technology 66, 207–212.Google Scholar
Belyea, RL, Rausch, KD, Clevenger, TE, Singh, V, Johnston, DB, Tumbleson, ME 2010. Source of variation in composition of DDGS. Animal Feed Science and Technology 159, 122–130.Google Scholar
Boila, RJ, Ingalls, JR 1994. The ruminal degradation of dry matter, nitrogen and amino acids in wheat-based distillers’ dried grains in sacco. Animal Feed Science and Technology 48, 57–72.Google Scholar
Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) 1993. Guide to the care and use of experimental animals, vol. 1, 2nd edition. CCAC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Centraal Veevoeder Bureau (CVB) 2010. Tabellenboek Veevoeding (Dutch feed table's booklet). CVB, Lelystad, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Christen, KA, Schingoethe, DJ, Kalscheur, KF, Hippen, AR, Karges, K, Gibsont, ML 2010. Response of lactating dairy cows to high protein distillers grains or 3 other protein supplements. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2095–2104.Google Scholar
Davis, KS 2001. Corn milling, processing and generation of co-products. Paper presented at the 62nd Minnesota Nutrition Conference and Minnesota Corn Growers Association Technical Symposium, 11 September 2001, Bloomington, MN, USA.Google Scholar
Depenbusch, BE, Coleman, CM, Higgins, JJ, Drouillard, JS 2009. Effects of increasing levels of dried corn distillers grains with solubles on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of yearling heifers. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2653–2663.Google Scholar
Gibb, DJ, Hao, X, McAllister, TA 2008. Effect of dried distillers’ grains from wheat on diet digestibility and performance of feedlot cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 88, 659–665.Google Scholar
Hall, MB, Hoover, WH, Jennings, JP, Miller Webster, TK 1999. A method for partitioning neutral detergent-soluble carbohydrates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79, 2079–2086.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harty, SR, Akayezu, J-M, Linn, JG, Cassady, JM 1998. Nutrient composition of distillers grains with added solubles. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1201 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique 1978. Alimentation Des Ruminants. INRA Editions, Versailles, France.Google Scholar
Jonker, A, Gruber, MY, Wang, Y, Coulman, B, Azarfar, A, McKinnon, JJ, Christensen, DA, Yu, P 2011. Modeling degradation ratios and nutrient availability of anthocyanidin-accumulating Lc-alfalfa populations in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1430–1444.Google Scholar
Kim, Y, Mosier, NS, Hendrickson, R, Ezeji, T, Blaschek, H, Dien, B, Cotta, M, Dale, B, Ladisch, MR 2008. Composition of corn dry-grind ethanol by-products: DDGS, wet cake, and thin stillage. Bioresource Technology 99, 5165–5176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingsly, ARP, Ileleji, KE, Clementson, CL, Garcia, A, Maier, DE, Stroshine, RL, Radcliff, S 2010. The effect of process variables during drying on the physical and chemical characteristics of corn dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) – plant scale experiments. Bioresource Technology 101, 193–199.Google Scholar
Kleinschmit, DH, Schingoethe, DJ, Kalscheur, KF, Hippen, AR 2006. Evaluation of various sources of corn distillers grains plus solubles for lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4784–4794.Google Scholar
Kleinschmit, DH, Anderson, JL, Schingoethe, DJ, Kalscheur, KF, Hippen, AR 2007. Ruminal and intestinal degradability of distillers grains plus solubles varies by source. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 2909–2918.Google Scholar
Lanzas, C, Sniffen, CJ, Seoa, S, Tedeschi, LO, Fox, DG 2007. A revised CNCPS feed carbohydrate fractionation scheme for formulating rations for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology 136, 167–190.Google Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM, Van Soest, PJ 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, K 2009. Effects of particle size distribution, compositional and color properties of ground corn on quality of distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS). Bioresource Technology 100, 4433–4440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCleary, BV, Gibson, CC, Mugford, CC 1997. Measurements of total starch in cereal products by amyloglucosidase alpha-amylase method, collaborative study. AOAC International 80, 571–579.Google Scholar
Mulrooney, CN, Schingoethe, DJ, Kalscheur, KF, Hippen, AR 2009. Canola meal replacing distillers grains with solubles for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5669–5676.Google Scholar
Nakamura, T, Klopfenstein, TJ, Britton, RA 1998. Evaluation of acid detergent insoluble nitrogen as an indicator of protein quality in nonforage proteins. Journal of Animal Science 72, 1043–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NKJ Protein Group 1985. Introduction of the Nordic protein evaluation system for ruminants into practice and future research requirements. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 25 (suppl.), 216–220.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC) 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th edition. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nuez-Ortín, WG 2010. Variation and availability of nutrients in co-products from bio-ethanol production fed to ruminants MSc, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.Google Scholar
Nuez-Ortín, WG, Yu, P 2009. Nutrient variation and availability of wheat DDGS, corn DDGS and blend DDGS from bioethanol plants. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, 1754–1761.Google Scholar
Nuez-Ortín, WG, Yu, P 2010a. Estimation of ruminal and intestinal digestion profiles, hourly degradation ratio and potential N to energy synchronization of co-products of bioethanol production. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90, 2058–2067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuez-Ortín, WG, Yu, P 2010b. Effects of bioethanol plant and coproduct type on the metabolic characteristics of the proteins in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3775–3783.Google Scholar
Offner, A, Bach, A, Sauvant, D 2003. Quantitative review of in situ starch degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 106, 81–93.Google Scholar
Pirt, SJ 1965. The maintenance energy of bacteria in growing cultures. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 163, 224–231.Google Scholar
Robinson, PH, Fadel, JG, Tamminga, S 1986. Evaluation of mathematical models to describe neutral detergent residue in terms of its susceptibility to degradation in the rumen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 15, 249–271.Google Scholar
Robinson, PH, Karges, K, Gibson, ML 2008. Nutritional evaluation of four co-product feedstuffs from the motor fuel ethanol distillation industry in the Midwestern USA. Animal Feed Science and Technology 146, 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, JS, Harrison, JS 1987. Yeast: yeasts and the environment, 2nd edition. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2003. SAS/STAT package. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Saxton, AM 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in PROC MIXED. Proceedings of the 23rd SAS® User Group International, 22–25 March 1998, Nashville, TN, USA, pp. 1243–1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, V, Rausch, KD, Graeber, JV, Schmidt, SJ, Buriak, P, Tumbleson, ME, Singh, V 2009. Effect of resistant starch on hydrolysis and fermentation of corn starch for ethanol. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 160, 800–811.Google Scholar
Spieh, MJ, Whitney, MH, Shurson, GC 2002. Nutrient database for distiller's dried grains with solubles produced from new ethanol plants in Minnesota and South Dakota. Journal of Animal Science 80, 2639–2645.Google Scholar
Tamminga, S, van Straalen, WM, Subnel, APJ, Meijer, RGM, Steg, A, Wever, CJG, Blok, MC 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system: DVE/OEB system. Livestock Production Science 40, 139–155.Google Scholar
Thomas, C 2004. Feed into milk: a new applied feeding system for dairy cows. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Van Duinkerken, G, Blok, MC, Bannink, A, Cone, JW, Dijkstra, J, Van Vuuren, AM, Tamminga, S 2011. Update of the Dutch protein evaluation system for ruminants: the DVE/OEB2010 system. The Journal of Agricultural Science 149, 351–367.Google Scholar
Vérité, R, Geay, Y 1987. Evaluation and implementation of the PDI system in France. In Feed valuation and protein requirement systems for ruminants (ed. R Jarrige and G Alderman), pp. 249–261. ECSC-EEC-EAEC, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
Yu, P, Hart, K, Du, L 2009. An investigation of carbohydrate and protein degradation ratios, nitrogen to energy synchronization and hourly effective rumen digestion of barley: effect of variety and growth year. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 93, 555–567.Google Scholar
Yu, P, McKinnon, JJ, Christensen, DA 2004. The ratios of degradation characteristics of forages in the rumen of dairy cows: effect of variety and stage of maturity. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 84, 179–189.Google Scholar